CT Starships & Mayday

[Enoff]

I have been going over the rules for Mayday and comparing them to the LBB #2 Starships. It was always implied that Mayday was a way to play LBB #2 Starships in hexes.

First thing I noticed was that the scale for both is very different. Mayday has a hex scale of 300,000km (a light second) as near as I can figure out Starships would have a hex scale of 10,000km. A Turn in Mayday is 100 minutes and Starships is 1000 seconds.

Is there connection between the Spaceships listed in Mayday and the Ships listed in Starships? Mayday doesn't use turrets, as near as I can figure each 100tons allows 1 weapon, no double or Triple Turrets. The Mayday attack DMs would give +1 for each additional Laser so double or triple turrets would quickly produce +20 to hit dms.

Mayday also has a Laser hit DM of -1 per hex range, Starships lists a -2 DM for targets at more than 2500mm (or 25 hexes) a -5 DM for targets more than 5000mm (or 50 hexes). It would be impossible to hit a target with a Laser at 25 hexes with Mayday.

Damage is very simple in Mayday just four systems can be knocked out (Computer, Weaponry, M-Drive, J-Drive) and if a ship takes four hits in one turn it is destroyed. Starships has a weird damage allocation where the drives and powerplant reduce in effectiveness by their letter designation. A critical hit totally destroys the item. Each fuel hit releases some fuel. Hull, hold and Cabin hits basically cause decompression but no other damage unless you are role playing some item that is destroyed in the hold or someone's cabin.

 

[Supplement Four]

Mayday is a different game. It gives you a bridge between High Guard and Book 2. Because of the range, most people that I know use it for small ship combat on the High Guard scale.

In fact, some people combine High Guard and Mayday, playing HG on a hex map (I believe there's a JTAS article to this effect).



Just as there is several ways to play Traveller ground combat (Striker, Snapshot, Azhanti High Lightning, Traveller, Mercenary), there are several ways to play Traveller starship combat.

First, there's Book 2, where you use rulers, protractors, and your living room floor.

Next, there's Starter Traveller, that takes Book 2 combat a merges it with the Range Band method of Traveller ground combat, making Book 2 space combat compatible to play without a board, plot, or the kitchen floor.

Then, you have High Guard, with just two abstract ranges, a brilliant way to play large fleet engagements from a role playing perspective.

Trillion Credit Squadron marries High Guard with a macro world/starsystem/kingdom building process.

And, Mayday is a way of playing small ship (or large ship) encounters on a hex board.

They're different, fun, good games. Each of them bring a different piece of sunlight to Traveller.

It was always implied that Mayday was a way to play LBB #2 Starships in hexes.

I remember thinking that, back in the day, when I purchased Mayday, too. But, that's not the case.

What you can do, though, is a very simple, very easy to use tweak to Book 2 or Starter Traveller starship combat.

Use a hex grid. Have the grid size equal 10,000 km. Then, simply use the rules from Starter Traveller. Instead of moving Range Bands, move hexes.

Viola, you've got Book 2 on a hex grid.

Use Mayday's vector system. Use the M-Drive number as the number of hexes that can add to velocity each turn. For example, if an M-Drive 1 vessel accelerates from 0 velocity to 1 hex per round, this will take him a round. 0-1 in one round. Next round, if the ship keeps accelerating, it can change velocity to 2. Another round of acceleration takes it to 3 hexes of "speed" per turn. Don't forget, it will also take that ship 3 hexes to decelerate back to a velocity of relative 0, so it takes it 3 turns too.

A ship with a M-3 drive can accelerate 0-3, 0-1, or 0-2 in a round. It's choice.

Also remember, using the Mayday vector system, that with higher velocities, it takes a lot of time to maneuver away from the direction of thrust (although the ship itself can orient any way it wants to while not accelerating or decelerating).

I've played several encounters this way, using Starter Traveller starship combat on a hex board. It works great.

Range in Traveller space combat is so distant, though, that maneuvering is usually moot. These days, I just default to standard, everyday Starter Traveller Range Bands and describe the action in my players' heads.

I don't bother with hex boards any more. For me, it's Starter Traveller or High Guard, depending on the needs of the encounter.

 

[Whipsnade]

It was always implied that Mayday was a way to play LBB #2 Starships in hexes.

Enoff,

Nope, and it says as much right on the Mayday cover(1) too:

This game uses a variant of the starship rules presented in Traveller

(emphasis mine)

GDW was a wargame company first and published wargames for the whole of it's existence. Mayday was part of their Series 120 Game line of which GDW said "The basic concept of a Series 120 Game is to provide a short, inexpensive game without sacrificing historical quality or gaming excellence." Most of the 120 games had 120 counters too.

so, while Mayday used some concepts from Traveller, it was part of a line of wargames first and part of Traveller second.

First thing I noticed was that the scale for both is very different.

And that's why so much else is different too. Scale is the context in which most of a game's design is fashioned.

GDW also made design choices more with an eye towards providing a short, inexpensive game and less with an eye towards Traveller compatibility, hence the simpler weapons and damage rules.


Regards,
Bill

1- The Series 120 games were all initially ziplocs.

 

[Supplement Four]

1- The Series 120 games were all initially ziplocs.

Yep, and "120" in Series 120 came from the idea that the games were meant to be played in two hours or less.

 

[aramis]

Some editions have the HG adaptations in the rulebook.

 

[Enoff]

I have been working on creating a Ship Data sheet to use with the MayDay board.

http://www.lexweb.us/shipsdata.jpg

I have counters to represent the different computer programs. This will be placed on the appropriate space on the computer section.

I also realized with vectors that you can really get a wild vector that can't be totally reflected on the board with past, present and future counters. I envision placing a numbered counter to indicated how much thrust in applied in different directions.

Missiles seem the most important thing, I don't imagine many close actions unless both players desire it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Missiles seem the most important thing, I don't imagine many close actions unless both players desire it.

Exactly. Which is why, in a face-to-face game, a hex board isn't necessary. Range is all you need to know.

This is why Starter Traveller and High Guard work so well.

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

One way to deal with the issues surrounding large vectors and hex maps is to go with a "ship centric" movement system. Instead of moving the ships and other counters on the map, you move the map instead. Let me explain.

Avalon Hill produced two well known and well received wargames titled Patton's Best and B-17: Queen of the Skies. While movement occurs in both games, the tank or bomber being played don't move at all. Instead, the enemies the tank and bomber are interacting are moved instead.

The "map" in Patton's Best resembles a dart board. You've several wedge-shaped sections making up a few concentric range bands. When the tank "moves", the enemy counters placed around it are moved instead. For example, if a tank with an enemy counters at 12 o'clock turns right 90 degrees, the enemy counter is moved to the 9 o'clock position. If the tank "moves" forward, the counter at 12 o'clock is moved to a closer range band. It's rather easy to comprehend once you see it happen.

"Map centric" Mayday is handled in a similar manner. The current position marker for the player's ship is placed at the center of the map and the future position marker placed wherever it belongs. All the markers belonging to the opposing ships and missiles are then placed on the map. In the movement phase, the players and GM move all the future position markers per the rules. All the present position markers are swept off the map, the players' ship's future position marker is moved to the center, all the other future position markers placed in relation to it, and new future markers placed after that.

Again, it's rather simple once you do it a few times.

Among "map centric" movement's advantages over range band movement is how missiles are handled. Because missile strikes are actually being moved, none of the subtleties regarding missiles in Mayday are lost. (Poorly chosen vectors can leave your missile launches useless against an opponent.) What's more, "map centric" movement allows player designs from SS3 to be used to their full effect.


Regards,
Bill

 

[aramis]

Exactly. Which is why, in a face-to-face game, a hex board isn't necessary. Range is all you need to know.

This is why Starter Traveller and High Guard work so well.

Except that, for many, they don't work; ST because the moment one launches missiles and veers, one has a plane, not a line, to account for.

It's TOO compressed. While I've never used Starter's system, I've used similar in many other games, including in basic traveller ranged combat, and I've always found it frustrates players and annoys me to have the lack of a second dimesion.

Adding the third, however, confuses more than it simplifies.

In short, 2D works better IME becuase it's detailed enough for most, and not confusing for most, especially when a map is used.

And HG doesn't work for a good many because of issues of scaling, lack of cumulation, impenetrability of armor, and a few other odd annoyances, in addition to completely ignoring/abstracting-out vector, momentum, and maneuver concerns, and having no Player Character interface in its first appearance (and little in it's 2nd, MT appearance). It's ok for a wargame (and I do mean just OK, not even good), but it absolutely sucks for a character focused RPG's supplement.

 

[Enoff]

With all done and said I agree with a total Role Playing approach to space combat. Its much easier to Space Opera this stuff.

OK I have a revised version of my Ship Data Chart which I am building in Cyberboard to help with ship management in the May Day game. I hope soon to modify the idea for LBB 2 Starships. Now that I have accepted the scale differences of the two games I will look to modify to accommodate accordingly.

Clean Ships Data Chart
http://www.lexweb.us/shipsdata2.jpg

Demo Ships Data Chart
http://www.lexweb.us/shipsdatacomp.jpg

I am working on a Cyberboard gamebox that uses the Brilliant Lances graphics
http://www.lexweb.us/boardcomp.jpg

I am trying to create a graphical ship data chart that will allow ship management without any paper records. Everything in Cyberboard

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

I really like the chart you've put together. I've long wished for what I guess you might call a more "operational" type way of resolving ship combat than either Mayday, LBB2, or High Guard, where you're players skills have a real chance to come into play and I'm really interested to see how your stuff develops.

Regards

PF

 

[Enoff]

I always enjoyed Task Force Games, Starfleet Battles.
I think the Ship management chart was a big part of this.

To Whip who mentioned Wargames, I am being heavily influenced by AH Submarine and AH Air War at the moment.

 

[Supplement Four]

Except that, for many, they don't work; ST because the moment one launches missiles and veers, one has a plane, not a line, to account for.

There are special rules for missiles and Range Band movement presented in the Special Supplement on Missiles. Use those, and you're golden.

 

[captainjack]

With all done and said I agree with a total Role Playing approach to space combat. Its much easier to Space Opera this stuff.
Clean Ships Data Chart
[etc]
I am trying to create a graphical ship data chart that will allow ship management without any paper records. Everything in Cyberboard

VERY nice. Thanks mucho !

 

[Whipsnade]

Enoff,

Superb player aid cards! Please, please, please upload them to the Gallery so they don't get lost!

One tiny suggestion? Would you be able to place size numbers on the computer program chits? Your cards list the size of the CPU and Storage sections, so if the program chits had sizes on them a player could tell with a quick glance what can fit where.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Enoff]

Good Idea Whip

 

[aramis]

There are special rules for missiles and Range Band movement presented in the Special Supplement on Missiles. Use those, and you're golden.

Not really. I found them to be even more annoying, and hard to visualize.

 

[Supplement Four]

Not really. I found them to be even more annoying, and hard to visualize.

Well, if they're hard to visualize, then it's the GM's fault. With range band movement, all the action takes place inside the player's heads, with the GM describing the scene--like the camera lense on a high budget space opera movie. Or, as I do it, from the PC's persepective. It's not hard to describe blips on a scanner, getting closer. This lends itself to the old Traveller-as-WWII-submarine warfare, with the captain, eyes glued to the sonar, tracking torpedo blips.

 

[aramis]

The more one has to track, the harder it is to visualize. Hence why I much prefer counters on map for combats.

 

[Whipsnade]

S4,

With regards to SS3, if the players are "gearheaded" enough to want to design their own missiles they'll be "gearheaded" enough to want to both see those missiles perform and control their performance on a map. The GM's descriptions, no matter how wondrous, cannot match watching their missile design perform.

I've mentioned many times before that my groups were wargamers and thus found maps, chits, and all the rest to be second nature. I regularly "pulled out the map" in the most mundane situations. I'd announce "You've exited jump in the Arglebargle-IX, plot your course to the port." and the players would fall into their various shipboard roles while I passed along 3x5 cards, moved other ship counters, and generally used the opportunity to show and not tell them information about their situation.

I didn't use the map all the time however. Sometimes it would be too much bother. Sometimes it would slow the session. Sometimes it didn't fit the needs of the players. And that's all that really matters about what type of space combat "system" you run: Does it meet the need of the players and the session? If not, you've got to try something else no matter what it is.

Drama and tension can arise in many situations. I can remember one situation during a game of Mayday/HG2 when a player acting as a gunner fired at the wrong missile counter. Given the vectors involved, the missiles he shot at could not have intercepted the vessel he was defending. His error caused gasps around the table, made the players' situation even more desperate, and led to a session that the players long remembered. As a GM, I could have never "imposed" such a mistake in a purely "descriptive" battle.

Each "system" has it's benefits, each "system" has it's costs, and each "system" is best suited for different situations.


Regards,
BIll