Differences in Starship Combat Between B2 and HG?

[Poppyseed45]

On a CT kick recently, and have an idea to run it for my group in a few months when our D7D 5e campaign winds up. I was just wondering if anyone has (or can do) a succinct summary of the differences in starship combat between Book 2 of the basic set and HG? Because I'm trying to thing ahead a bit and figure out which combat system to use for starship battles.

 

[kilemall]

LBB2 starship combat is intended for miniatures movement on a table surface, or at least graph paper, and is geared towards ACS battles (Adventurer Class Ships). It has movement, computer program handling, and a simplified damage/build system including missiles, lasers and sand as primary weapons.

HG is geared towards building and operating large battle fleets filled with large ships and big exotic weapons. Combat is abstracted into short/long range, only range change maneuver, computer differences are simplified into a die mod, and weapon/defense interactions and therefore builds are more complex.

A companion piece to HG, TCS or Trillion Credit Squadron, handles rules for an abstracted space empire campaign version of HG.

A CT overview would be incomplete without mentioning Mayday, a board game version of maneuver that is more abstract then LBB2 but less then HG.

So, a lot of which system you choose depends on your entertainment goals.

Keep in mind you can handcraft what you want out of the base material. For instance in LBB2 many people forego the computer handling subgame and/or the hard maneuver aspects, choosing range bands like many later versions do.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

While I mostly agree, I would state the difference differently.

LBB2: Highly detailed. You have to keep track of the vector movement of every ship and every missile. You have to keep track of exactly which computer software you are running during what phase of your and the enemies turn.

LBB5: Highly abstract. No movement (almost). No software. Launching 10 missiles can be resolved with one or two die rolls, nothing to remember and keep track of to next round. Much faster.


Do you want a simple combat to take a few hours or half-an-hour?


Both systems bog down to masses of die rolls if you use more or bigger ships, LBB5 can handle somewhat more. TCS can help remove a lot of die rolls for larger battles from the LBB5 system.


The LBB5 ship design system is more detailed and has things such as armour, screens, and more types of weapons that can't be represented in LBB2 combat.


Some people have reported good results using combinations of the two systems, such as LBB2 movement with LBB5 attack rolls.

 

[atpollard]

Just as a point of information, I didn't really care much about the actual combat as a game but wanted to focus on the role-playing and PC perspective of the events, so I used LBB2 combat with range bands and converted the 'turns' and 'rounds' to 'minutes and seconds' then just kept the combat outside of the game and focused on how the players experienced the events. Here is a Scout Ship running a blockade at the start of the PbP game here on COTI:

(My LBB Combat example)

 

[GypsyComet]

HG is geared towards building and operating large battle fleets filled with large ships

This is an important point. HG is a fleet sim, and is statistically centered above 10,000 tons. Damage is purely performance based, and weapons and drives degrade quickly under fire. That degradation makes the game too punishing for PC scale ships within the context of role-playing.

The TL progression presented in HG is also clearly modeling a typical arms race.

 

[mike wightman]

For a puerely role played starship combat experience use the hidden combat system - read the ship's boat skill entry.

Add stuff for the engineer (extra power from power plant allowing for double fire or to mitigate the effect of a degradation in power plant letter), navigator (sensor scans to detect enemy vessels, missile swarms etc), computer operator (ECM, switching out computer programs), gunner and damage control parties to do during a combat turn and you have a role playing version of ship combat that can involve every PC.

 

[creativehum]

For a puerely role played starship combat experience use the hidden combat system - read the ship's boat skill entry.

Add stuff for the engineer (extra power from power plant allowing for double fire or to mitigate the effect of a degradation in power plant letter), navigator (sensor scans to detect enemy vessels, missile swarms etc), computer operator (ECM, switching out computer programs), gunner and damage control parties to do during a combat turn and you have a role playing version of ship combat that can involve every PC.

Mike, when you do this are you involving the rules from the ship buildout? (Computer size, programs, turrets, damage tables, and so on) but keeping it focused from the PCs' point of view in the ship?

 

[McPerth]

including missiles, lasers and sand as primary weapons.

In fact, if you play LBB2/TTB/Mayday only, thsoe are the only eapons you have in your arsenal...

For a puerely role played starship combat experience use the hidden combat system - read the ship's boat skill entry.

Add stuff for the engineer (extra power from power plant allowing for double fire or to mitigate the effect of a degradation in power plant letter), navigator (sensor scans to detect enemy vessels, missile swarms etc), computer operator (ECM, switching out computer programs), gunner and damage control parties to do during a combat turn and you have a role playing version of ship combat that can involve every PC.

This is IMHO the main point: LBB2 (or mayday) system is RPG, and each crewmember has its effect, his skills may make the difference. HG is wargaming, the ship is a unit, and only its commander (ship's tactics) of Pilot may make the difference with their skills.

OTOH, using big armed ships in LBB2 does not use to work, Too much sand and ships may not hit one another, too many hits and the ships are left cripples quite soon

 

[flykiller]

engineer (extra power from power plant allowing for double fire

turn by turn, or duration? penalties for failure? examples?

 

[mike wightman]

Mike, when you do this are you involving the rules from the ship buildout? (Computer size, programs, turrets, damage tables, and so on) but keeping it focused from the PCs' point of view in the ship?

Yes, that's it in a nutshell.
If the ship combat is part of the roleplaying story/adventure then I use polar graph paper to show relative positions and keep each of the players as involved as possible by giving them each something to do.

If ship combat is a major theme for the evening then its out with the hex maps and vector movement not to mention much more detailed ship hit locations (TNE FF&S).

Note that this is for a role playing evening. We do occasionally wargame in my various Traveller settting using a variety of hybrid systems.

 

[mike wightman]

turn by turn, or duration? penalties for failure? examples?

Roll each turn 8+ target number to treat power plant as next highest letter.
Roll a 2 and pp is treated as one lower for the turn - which may impact maneuver drive.

A higher pp rating may allow double fire for the turn - you need the program still or a gunner can try an 8+ roll to do it without the program but the chance of frying your lasers is doubled.

These are house rules of course.

 

[flykiller]

yeah, just getting a feel for how others see it.

I'd make any increase a very difficult task and per-turn, and avoiding any downgrade an unusual task and permanent until repaired.

 

[Poppyseed45]

Everyone, very interesting! These are things I didn't even really read into LBB2 and hg - which is why I asked! Thanks to everyone; really learning a lot here, which will help my future game.

 

[infojunky]

Note there a big damage differences between Bk2 and HG. Bk2 has a more incremental damage system, while HG is damage is based on the number of Critical Hits, with incremental damage being largely a secondary effect.

 

[creativehum]

One more thing to consider:

A differences found in the 1977 edition and the 1981 edition regarding DAMAGE.
In 1977 the Ship Hit Location Table does not have "Critical" results. Because of this there is no "Explode" result.

The 1981 edition has Critical Damage results, and in the Critical Hit Table there is an "Explode" result that destroys the ship.

In 1977 edition the ship has its components knocked down letter by letter, but there's no chance of it being blown up outright. And there is no chance of a ship simple being destroyed out from under the feet of the PCs.

In 1981 components gets knocked down on regular hits, but can be destroyed outright on a Critical hit... and the entire ship can go up on a bad roll.

Each set of players will have to decide which one they want.

For me, 1977 makes more sense for RPG play, since the risk of damage is enough to provide tension to the crew, and the loss of an entire ship seems depressing as hell even if the crew survives. Having a ship that can be repaired at great cost seems more interesting to me than having to get a ship from scratch.

On the other hand, having Crits and total destruction of a ship makes perfect sense for wargame/board game play, since removing units permanently fits neatly in the tradition of that style of play.

But that's my interpretation. Everyone will have their own. The key is there is an option in the 1977 rules that you might want to consider.

 

[Bob Weaver]

One more thing to consider:

A differences found in the 1977 edition and the 1981 edition regarding DAMAGE.
In 1977 the Ship Hit Location Table does not have "Critical" results. Because of this there is no "Explode" result.

The 1981 edition has Critical Damage results, and in the Critical Hit Table there is an "Explode" result that destroys the ship.

If my maths are correct, to get the "oops you're all dead" Explode result, the referee must roll a 12 (2d) and then a 6 (1d). This is 0.027x0.167, or 0.0045. A 0.45% probability of Explode. It's still pretty rare. I don't care for the Critical Hit table all the same, and don't use it in my ship combats.