CT Mass Combat Resolution

[aramis]

The rules still produce reasonable results for non-nuclear combat. Ignore spillover fire, of course. And that is the only GEV rule that actually reflects nuclear combat. EDIT -- the optional rules allowing the ruining of bridges and town hexes should be ignored as well.

Beyond that, a Heavy Tank will defeat a Light Tank most of the time as in real life. A missile armed tank has a decent chance of hurting the Heavy Tank if the missile tank gets first shot. Since it has double the range, there's a decent chance of this. If the missile tank fails, the heavy will likely destroy him when he gets in range.

As far as infantry, don't worry about it. Give each squad a defense of 1 and the results will be good enough.

If you have armored and unarmored infantry in a battle, give the unarmored infantry a 1/2 defense strength per squad.

One tweak that could be made would be to introduce an overwatch rule. From my rules A Fistful of TOWs 3 -- a unit that is eligible to fire may instead take an overwatch marker. This allows it to fire before, after or at any point in the enemy movement phase. If overwatch fire happens before or after the enemy movement phase, no modifiers apply. If the fire happens during the movement phase, apply a -1 to the attack roll.

A faster rule that gets about the same result would be the FFT Hold Fire rule: a unit that is eligible to fire may instead take a hold fire marker. This allows it to fire in the enemy fire phase. This fire happens before the enemy fires.

Or you can ignore overwatch. The very low speeds make panzerbushing less of a problem than one might expect.

If you are fighting a largely infantry action, the original Squad Leader game and rules can handle that superbly. Use the same approach -- everything is rated relative to what's in that fight.

This approach will produce *rational* outcomes; it will not replace dedicated wargames like A Fistful of TOWs or even Striker. But GEV or even SL are plenty fine for RPGs.

I think the description of a "D" result isn't all that good... because it mentions (at least in some editions) that it's an EMP and shockwave effect; the time down is due to things rebooting as much as it is from the shock of fire nearby.

I'm not an expert on armored combat, tho'

Also, there's the odds issue (called out in The Ogre Book, Playing the Odds in Ogre) which seems a bit of a counterfactual approach for anything short of nukes... Worst case:
2x 1:1 is mathematically far superior to 1x 2:1.
1x 2:1 33% D 50% X or XX
2x 1:1 22% D 67% X or XX

That's fixable by tweaking the table (either adjusting the odds or the result rolls).
I'm also not fond of the odds hiccup between 1:2 and 1:1...

Plus, the all-or-nothing of a hit on a disabled unit outside overrun being an autokill.

I think using the overrun values across the board for disabled, but not auto-recovering might make more sense; turn it into a damage step rather than a condition.

Note: There's an article on using OGRE for 2300 in one of the magazines.

 

[tbeard1999]

I think the description of a "D" result isn't all that good... because it mentions (at least in some editions) that it's an EMP and shockwave effect; the time down is due to things rebooting as much as it is from the shock of fire nearby.

That was never in the original rules. Jackson's designer's notes for GEV had a vignette that simply said the crew was stunned from the attack. As it is, it models short term disorganization/morale problems pretty well. And quickly.

So regardless of the fluff text, the mechanic works quite well.

(If a vehicle unit takes a "D" result, it is "disabled" -- it cannot move or fire next turn, except in overrun [same hex] combat. After that turn, the unit is no longer disabled. If a disabled unit takes a second "D" result it's destroyed.)

Also, there's the odds issue (called out in The Ogre Book, Playing the Odds in Ogre) which seems a bit of a counterfactual approach for anything short of nukes... Worst case:
2x 1:1 is mathematically far superior to 1x 2:1.
1x 2:1 33% D 50% X or XX
2x 1:1 22% D 67% X or XX

<shrug> Then make two 1:1 attacks then...if you can. In GEV units -- other than infantry -- cannot split their fire. Doesn't seem like much of an issue to me, since it makes infantry a slight bit better. In addition, making separate attacks for each vehicle models real life better.

Plus, the all-or-nothing of a hit on a disabled unit outside overrun being an autokill.

A second D result on a unit that is already disabled will kill it. There's no autokill rule like you describe in the classic GEV rules.

In overruns, D results become destroyed results. That simply makes overruns go much faster without materially changing the results.

I think using the overrun values across the board for disabled, but not auto-recovering might make more sense; turn it into a damage step rather than a condition.

You must be thinking of a different game. There are no overrun values in GEV. You use the same attack and defense values with 2 differences -- D results become destroyed and infantry is doubled.

Since I lifted -- and tweaked -- the GEV overrun rules for A Fistful of TOWs, I obviously like them.

In any case, I think GEV is a very good system to quickly resolve battles in a Traveller game. I also happen to like it as a war game, but of course it lacks the depth of games like A Fistful of TOWs or Panzer Leader, etc.

 

[tbeard1999]

I guess I should add that long ago, I wrote a Traveller variant for second edition Warhammer 40k. If you strip out the science fantasy elements, that edition turns out to be a very decent set of infantry skirmish rules. Later editions...not so much.

 

[Whipsnade]

The purpose would be to create a fast moving skirmish game that can be plugged into a Traveller game.

Bingo. Fast moving with a few sci-fi wrinkles like grav belts, drones, etc. Wrinkles that can be "baked into" the counters rather than imposed by paragraphs of rules; i.e. grav belts modeled by movement factors, drones modeled by combat/detection bonuses, etc.

Careening off on another tangent in my inimitable harum-scarum posting "style", have you seen Decision Game's various Commando mini-game series? There's a Congo merc title, a SADF in Angola title, a Desert Rats title, and so forth. They're solitaire, have point to point movement, use operation points, and OPFOR is controlled by card draws. Each mission card lists your objective(s) and the points you have to build your force. You can string the missions into a campaign game.

While playing the Congo title, I suddenly thought of A:7 Broadsword...

 

[aramis]

That was never in the original rules. Jackson's designer's notes for GEV had a vignette that simply said the crew was stunned from the attack. As it is, it models short term disorganization/morale problems pretty well. And quickly.

So regardless of the fluff text, the mechanic works quite well.

(If a vehicle unit takes a "D" result, it is "disabled" -- it cannot move or fire next turn, except in overrun [same hex] combat. After that turn, the unit is no longer disabled. If a disabled unit takes a second "D" result it's destroyed.)



<shrug> Then make two 1:1 attacks then...if you can. In GEV units -- other than infantry -- cannot split their fire. Doesn't seem like much of an issue to me, since it makes infantry a slight bit better. In addition, making separate attacks for each vehicle models real life better.



A second D result on a unit that is already disabled will kill it. There's no autokill rule like you describe in the classic GEV rules.

In overruns, D results become destroyed results. That simply makes overruns go much faster without materially changing the results.



You must be thinking of a different game. There are no overrun values in GEV. You use the same attack and defense values with 2 differences -- D results become destroyed and infantry is doubled.

Since I lifted -- and tweaked -- the GEV overrun rules for A Fistful of TOWs, I obviously like them.

In any case, I think GEV is a very good system to quickly resolve battles in a Traveller game. I also happen to like it as a war game, but of course it lacks the depth of games like A Fistful of TOWs or Panzer Leader, etc.

I was looking at the Ogre Minis rulebook as I typed, and the Ogre Book, Ty. Perhaps you don't know the games as well as you think.

 

[kilemall]

Hmm, perhaps give units their heavy/light- speed designation within their TL, then shift columns between TLs? Or add TL advantage, +1 per 2TLs, to Attack/Defense Values?

VERY Striker, as maybe something TL12 and light can devastate TL8 opponents.

Or maybe something more like +1 attack value per TL, +1 value to be added to either speed or armor (but not both).

 

[tbeard1999]

I was looking at the Ogre Minis rulebook as I typed, and the Ogre Book, Ty. Perhaps you don't know the games as well as you think.

Perhaps you were unclear as to which game I referred to. I am talking about GEV, the game originally released in 1978.

The Ogre Book is a reprint of various Space Gamer articles -- I own both that and the Space Gamer issues. Ogre Miniatures -- which I'm acquainted with -- came out in 1992 and are a different game.

The rules that you misstated -- overrun values, the implied notion that non-infantry can split their attack (other than a unit in Shockwave that has two guns), autokill mechanism for disabled units -- do not exist in GEV. And I'll check Ogre miniatures but I'm pretty sure they don't exist in Ogre Miniatures either. Or in the current SJG Ogre rules posted on their website.

The Ogre Book contains many variant rules but they are mostly unofficial. I recall no such rules in the Ogre Book.

From the comprehensive Ogre rules posted on SJG website:

"Each armor unit and infantry squad may apply its attack strength once per turn [omitted exceptions not relevant to this discussion]." (So you can't split fire.)

"A disabled unit cannot fire or move; turn the counter over. If it receives another D result while disabled, it is destroyed." (No autokill for disabled units).

"Attack strength in overruns. Attack strengths of infantry [and other units not relevant top this discussion]...are doubled in overrun attacks...All other units have normal attack strengths.
...
"Defense strength in overruns. Defending units in an overrun attack get their normal defensive multipliers, if any, for the terrain in that hex. The attacker in an overrun does not get any bonus; all attacking units defend at their printed strengths."
...Any attacker receiving either a D or X result is
removed. ...any defending unit receiving either a D or X is removed." (No special ratings for overrun combat).

Bottom line -- the only GEV rule that models nuclear combat are the spillover fire rules. Easily omitted, though a case could be made for keeping them for artillery. All the rest is flavor text, most of which was NOT in the original game rules.

 

[tbeard1999]

Hmm, perhaps give units their heavy/light- speed designation within their TL, then shift columns between TLs? Or add TL advantage, +1 per 2TLs, to Attack/Defense Values?

VERY Striker, as maybe something TL12 and light can devastate TL8 opponents.

Or maybe something more like +1 attack value per TL, +1 value to be added to either speed or armor (but not both).

Yeah, you could do that if you want to create a system that wouldn't require you to necessarily re-rate everything for each combat. EDIT: Though it's so simple to rate unots on a per battle basis, I don't know that the additional work to come up with a meta-system is really worth it.

 

[tbeard1999]

Hmm, perhaps give units their heavy/light- speed designation within their TL, then shift columns between TLs? Or add TL advantage, +1 per 2TLs, to Attack/Defense Values?

VERY Striker, as maybe something TL12 and light can devastate TL8 opponents.

Or maybe something more like +1 attack value per TL, +1 value to be added to either speed or armor (but not both).

After thinking about it, you can't just add +1 per TL. GEV uses an odds system, so you can mess up the game by simply increasing everything. Example -- a GEV Heavy tank (roughly TL8) has an attack strength of 4. A GEV light tank has a defense strength of 2. Unmodified, the Heavy gets a 2:1 attack on the light tank. If you (say) added 1 to attack and defense per additional tech level, a TL14 heavy would get an attack of 10 while a TL14 light tank has a defense of 8. That's a 1:1 attack, when it really should still be a 2:1 attack.

So you'd have to have some kind of system that multiplies base values. +50% of base for each additional TL maybe? Then the TL14 heavy has an attack strength of 16 while the TL14 light tank has a defense strength of 8. Still a 2:1 attack. Fractions could present a problem, of course, for units with odd-numbered attack or defense strengths. Round up or down? EDIT -- rounding up seems to work ok.

 

[infojunky]

I guess I should add that long ago, I wrote a Traveller variant for second edition Warhammer 40k. If you strip out the science fantasy elements, that edition turns out to be a very decent set of infantry skirmish rules.

You are not the only one to do that. Though If I were going to do it again I probably would start with Savage Worlds...

 

[jec10]

Note: There's an article on using OGRE for 2300 in one of the magazines.

That would be Challenge 34 where Lester Smith & Frank Chadwick presented rules for Ogre 2300 including conversion notes for 2300 vehicles.

It even included counters to use with GEV/Ogre featuring many of the iconic 2300 vehicles.

 

[Whipsnade]

Instead of ratios, how about using combat rating differentials with column shifts for TL disparities?

Tanks Able and Baker. Both are heavies. Both are rated ATT:4 and DEF:2. Able is TL7 and Baker is TL8.

Able shoots at Baker. 4 minus 2 would put it on the +2 column but the 7 vs. 8 TL shifts it one to the left to the +1 column.

Flip it. Baker shoot at Able. Again, 4 minus 2 would put it on the +2 column but the 8 vs. 7 TL shifts one to the right on the +3 column.

 

[kilemall]

Instead of ratios, how about using combat rating differentials with column shifts for TL disparities?

Tanks Able and Baker. Both are heavies. Both are rated ATT:4 and DEF:2. Able is TL7 and Baker is TL8.

Able shoots at Baker. 4 minus 2 would put it on the +2 column but the 7 vs. 8 TL shifts it one to the left to the +1 column.

Flip it. Baker shoot at Able. Again, 4 minus 2 would put it on the +2 column but the 8 vs. 7 TL shifts one to the right on the +3 column.

It would be more like

Able vs. Baker 2:1 shifts to 1:1.

Baker vs. Able 2:1 shifts to 3:1.

Essentially what I was suggesting at first before getting into the value option.

Really ferocious when we are talking TL8 vs. TL12- Able would only get 1:2 or unable to damage, and Baker would be 5:1 or autodestroy. I realized that and so was looking at values as maybe a bit more nuanced.

Or maybe, that's right. TL4 American Civil War troops against TL8 could hurt the infantry, but virtually never touch the armor and TL8 everything would devastate anything and everything that TL4 could field.

 

[tbeard1999]

Instead of ratios, how about using combat rating differentials with column shifts for TL disparities?

Tanks Able and Baker. Both are heavies. Both are rated ATT:4 and DEF:2. Able is TL7 and Baker is TL8.

Able shoots at Baker. 4 minus 2 would put it on the +2 column but the 7 vs. 8 TL shifts it one to the left to the +1 column.

Flip it. Baker shoot at Able. Again, 4 minus 2 would put it on the +2 column but the 8 vs. 7 TL shifts one to the right on the +3 column.

You could do that, but you're making serious changes to the game.

 

[tbeard1999]

It would be more like

Able vs. Baker 2:1 shifts to 1:1.

Baker vs. Able 2:1 shifts to 3:1.

Essentially what I was suggesting at first before getting into the value option.

Really ferocious when we are talking TL8 vs. TL12- Able would only get 1:2 or unable to damage, and Baker would be 5:1 or autodestroy. I realized that and so was looking at values as maybe a bit more nuanced.

Or maybe, that's right. TL4 American Civil War troops against TL8 could hurt the infantry, but virtually never touch the armor and TL8 everything would devastate anything and everything that TL4 could field.

I guess I didn't read your post correctly. The only issue I see is that anything less than 1:2 is automatically "no effect". So it would be quickly possible to have unkillable targets if there were even only 2 TLs difference. You could create a d12 based chart with more nuance at the bottom ends. Or let 1:3 and maybe 1:4 odds cause a "D" result on a 6.

 

[Whipsnade]

You could do that, but you're making serious changes to the game.

I'm not trying to kit bash GEV.

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm not trying to kit bash GEV.

I suppose you could create a differential based combat system by studying the odds charts and the game units and converting.

Sample GEV Units for the GEV Odds-Based Combat System
Heavy Tank a4 d3
Light Tank/GEV a2 d2
Missile Tank a3 d3
Howitzer a6 d1
Light GEV a1 d1

Assume a +1 differential is 2:1, +2 is 3:1 and so on... -1 differential is 1:2; 0 differential is 1:1.

Revised GEV Units for a Differential Combat System
Heavy Tank a4 d4
Light Tank/GEV a3 d3
Missile Tank -- in GEV gets 1:1 on both heavy tank and on light tank/GEV. Can't do that with a differential system and preserve the other relationships. Workable solution -- Msl Tank a4 d3; light missile tank a3 d3
Howitzer has similar problem -- gets a 1:1 on heavy tank but a 3:1 on light tank. Can't preserve that in differential system. Can have light Hwz with a3 and heavy hwz with a4
Light GEV a2 d2 (a heavy tank only gets equivalent of 3:1 rather than 4:1 in GEV; not much difference really)

So with this change, you could add +1 per tech level without having to use column shifts.

 

[tbeard1999]

Ratings at Each TL

OK! This little obsession is getting ridiculous. Here's an objective rating system for GEV Units:

First, pick a baseline tech level, which is the lowest TL vehicles you'll expect to have in your battles. All examples that follow assume a baseline TL of 7. The listed value is the value at the baseline TL. So a TL7 Heavy weapon will have an attack strength of 4. Attack and defense for vehicles with higher TLs will get the indicated bonus. So a TL10 heavy weapon will have an attack value of 4+2+2+2=10.

Attack Strength
Very Heavy: 6 +3 per TL
Heavy: 4 + 2 per TL
Medium: 3 + 1.5 per TL
Light: 2 +1 per TL
Very Light: 1 +0.5 per TL
Round all fractions up

Defense
Very Heavy: 4 +2 per TL
Heavy: 3 +1.5 per TL
Light: 2 +1 per TL
Very Light: 1 +0.5 per TL

Movement
Fast Ground - 3
Slow Ground - 2
Very Slow Ground/Infantry - 1
Fast GEV 4/3
Medium GEV 3/3
Slow GEV 3/2
Fast Grav 6/3
Medium Grav 5/3
Slow Grav 4/3

Range:
A few Very Heavy Direct Fire Weapons: 3
Most Direct Fire Weapons: 2
Small Caliber weapons and infantry weapons: 1
Standard Missile: 4
LR Missle
Medium Range Howitzers 6
Long Range Howitzer 8


Standard designs: Any design can reduce 1 rating by 1 and increase another rating by 1. A standard missile can replace a heavy weapon.

All ratings are at the baseline tech (TL7 in the examples).

A heavy tank will typically have a heavy weapon, heavy defense and fast ground speed. At TL7, a base heavy tank would be a4, r2, d3, m3. At TL10, it would be a10, r2, d8, m3. A slower model might carry a bigger gun. At TL7, it would be a6 r2 d8 m2

A light tank has a light weapon, light defense, fast ground speed - a2 r2 d2 m3 at baseline tech.

A missile tank has a medium standard missile, light defense, slow ground speed - a3 r4 d2 m2 at baseline tech.

A GEV has a light weapon, light defense and fast GEV speed - a2 r2 d2 m4/3.

Heavy Grav tank has heavy weapon, heavy defense and medium Grav speed - a4 r2 d3 m5/3

Light Grav Tank has light weapon, light defense and fast Grav speed - a2 r2 d2 m6/3

Howitzer has super heavy weapon, very light defense, no speed, long range howitzer. a6 r8 d1 m0.

Mobile howitzer has super heavy weapon, light defense, very slow vehicle movement and a medium range howitzer - a6 r6 d2 m1

Infantry squads are a1 r1 d1 m2. Some can be given a medium standard missile (a3 r4) -- they can make 1 such attack per game.

Don't change the ranges or movement rates as TLs go up. You'll break the system. Better to assume that hex sizes increase or that advanced point defense and theater defense systems limit ranges. If you don't heed this warning, use the Hold Fire or Overwatch rules I listed above. They will help.

For help balancing scenarios, here's a point value calculator http://www.hcobb.com/gev/formcalc.html

 

[mike wightman]

After much digging around in boxes in the loft I finally found my copy of Battlesuit.

Four types of battlesuit and two types of unarmoured infantry. Attack factor, ECM (defence factor) and movement.
Standard suit 8-2-5
Assault suit 10-3-6
Command suit 10-4-6
Ranger suit 8-5-7
Unarmoured infantry 3-0-2 or 4-0-2
Heavy weapon 14-(-2)-(-1) modifies the suit carrying it, may be swapped from suit to suit.
Three types of drone
recon 0-8-8 may paint a target while moving or paint two targets if it doesn't move
attack 6-8-8
bomb 0-8-8 boom,

Line of sight and using cover are critical to not being hit, painting a target is critical to making it easier to hit, especially indirectly.

I may have a go at adapting it to battledress combat in CT - the crew of the Bloodwell are going to be playing cat and mouse with an Imperial Army snatch squad very soon...

 

[Whipsnade]

After much digging around in boxes in the loft I finally found my copy of Battlesuit.

Bless you!

Four types of battlesuit and two types of unarmoured infantry. Attack factor, ECM (defence factor) and movement.

Hmmm... Even more details and options than my weary wetware remembered... That's a good thing actually.

The sci-fi "wrinkles" I previously mentioned already seem to be "baked" into counters.

Suits move faster, implying "grav belts" or something similar. Suit attack factors are higher, implying heavier/better weapons, better sensors, computer assistance, power for it all, etc. Suits have defense/ECM factors which "unarmored" infantry do not, implying armor or better armor, better sensors, ECM/ECCM, power for it all, etc.

I really like the heavy weapon counter and the fact that only suits can carry it. It could be our FGMP-15.

The three types of drones seem to cover all the bases we need.

Line of sight and using cover are critical to not being hit, painting a target is critical to making it easier to hit, especially indirectly.

What's that lovely phrase from a GDW wargame? Hide & Seek with bazookas?

The counter's attack factor isn't differentiated for direct or indirect fire, right? Just the difficulty to hit changes between the two?

A difference between direct and indirect weapons may be a "wrinkle" that could/should added.

I may have a go at adapting it to battledress combat in CT - the crew of the Bloodwell are going to be playing cat and mouse with an Imperial Army snatch squad very soon...

Ooh... nasty!

I've got to find a copy of Battledress. It may be a good choice from which to kit bash a Simplified AHL Outside game.