Easy Fix to CT Combat System -- Double Tap

[blacksmith61]

One idea I've toyed with in past years was to simply have shots resolved with 4 dice and a base target number of 15+.

In theory this would smooth out the more drastic modifiers while still allowing for a single roll to resolve the shot.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe a base four dice roll for 15+ was about the same as a two dice roll for 8+.

Sadly, haven't actually played Traveller in years, so never had a chance to try it.

Rob

 

[Dragoner]

Classic Traveller's baseline is aimed shots from a relatively stationary position at a relatively stationary lethal opponent. Not snapshots, on the move, at moving targets, etc.. All of which is more realistic for a combat scenario even though CT LBB1 only had one of them as a DM, Evade for a -1 to -4 to be hit but no attack possible for the evading party. Other publications had more DM options though.

Look at Don's CT errata, you'll find the dm's I'm using there, long ago I houseruled similar stuff, why bother as the errata is now official.

 

[mike wightman]

Classic Traveller's baseline is aimed shots from a relatively stationary position at a relatively stationary lethal opponent. Not snapshots, on the move, at moving targets, etc.. All of which is more realistic for a combat scenario even though CT LBB1 only had one of them as a DM, Evade for a -1 to -4 to be hit but no attack possible for the evading party. Other publications had more DM options though.

Why call their tactical combat board game snapshot rather than "Aimed shots from a relatively stationary position at a relatively stationary lethal opponent"

The Traveller combat rules allow for changing range bands while taking your shot, so movement is implied.

 

[tbeard1999]

Adding more DMs to the system will create more problems; it's not a very effective way to reduce weapon accuracy IMHO.

The problem is that there are already too many modifiers for a 2d6 system. Adding more just creates more issues. The 2d6 mechanic is simply too sensitive for a large number or range of modifiers. A mere -3 modifier will make a CT task nearly impossible -- 8%. A mere +4 modifier will make a CT task virtually certain to succeed (92%). Adding additional modifiers to an already overcrowded list won't solve the problem to my satisfaction. A simple example -- a man at medium range firing an SMG at an unarmored target will hit on a 0+. To reduce the to hit chance to 83% requires a DM of -4. But a Carbine firing at the same range and skill level needs an 8+ (42%) to hit. A -4 DM would give you a less than 3% chance of success.

This illustrates the problem -- a given modifier will affect different "to hit" numbers radically differently. A +4 changes a 100% chance to an 83%, but it changes a 42% chance to a 3%. This is why simply adding additional modifiers won't work very well.

I also note that the evade DM is only available if you don't shoot, so it doesn't really address the problem of unreasonably high accuracy. And the evasion DM is only -1 at close and short range and -2 at medium range. That doesn't materially impact things at the most common CT combat ranges.

As for the baseline being "everyone standing still", the rules explicitly allow you to move 25 meters per 15 second combat round and still fire without penalty. So I think that CT's combat system actually assumes that both sides are maneuvering and firing.

 

[Supplement Four]

Mentioned this in another thread, but it's worthy of its own thread.

IMHO, it is way too easy in CT to get (effectively) automatic hits.

The CT combat system is so fragile is that the skill, armor & range modifiers are too numerous and too high for a 2d6 system. With a base "to hit" number of 8+ (41% chance), a net +4 modifier raises this to a 4+ (91% chance). So, you wind up with weapons that have an effectively 100% chance of hitting.

A few comments on this:

First, you've got to remember that CT uses an abstract hit and damage system. When firing an automatic weapon, you don't resolve each bullet. And, when a shot from a weapon hits, even if that weapon fires one bullet, what does that really mean?

Does it mean that the character was shot?

The answer to that: It depends.

What does it depend on? It depends on how much damage the character took.

It's abstract damage.

It's very much like hit points in AD&D. A 15 point longsword strike on a fighter with 30 hit points was not really damaged all that much. He certainly wasn't cut deep. The same 15 points applied to a 2nd level fighter with 11 hit points is dying--that stroke did cause so much damage that the character will die soon.

Classic Traveller damage is no different.

If you fire a burst of 4 rounds from your SMG and "hit" your target, doing damage of: 3, 2, 2. And the target character has physical stats 876. First blood rule makes you take all damage from one stat, and STR is randomly rolled, then the target remains at 176 on his physicals.

What happened here? How many of the four bullets hit? How "damaged" is the target?

We don't really know because the attack and damage system in CT is abstract. What we have to do is take the resulting condition of the character and surmise from there.

If none of a character's physical stats are reduced to zero, then the character is considered to have suffered a Minor Wound. If another character with Medical-1 skill treats this character (no roll needed), then the hurt character is again 100% healthy in 30 minutes. This happens 100% of the time.

Does that sound like a gunshot wound to you?

And, if there is no gunshot, that means that ZERO of the 4 SMG bullets actually hit the character.

Comment #1 is that comparisons of the probability of CT weapons actually hitting their targets cannot be surmised just by looking at the probability of the dice indicating a hit. Damage has to be considered as well. Therefore, a rule like what TBeard suggests above is not necessary.

Now, consider if the First Blood rule directs all 7 points of that damage to DEX on the target with physicals 876. What happens now?

The same shot and the same damage are a bit more serious. By the rules, the character has a single stat at zero, which indicates that he has a Minor Wound that has knocked him Unconscious.

The target is laid out, unconscious, for 10 minutes, after which time, his zeroed stat is placed at the halfway point to being fully healed.

So, our 876 target is hit, and his stats are reduced to 806. This means that the character is knocked out for 10 minutes. Then, the character is considered to have a minor wound with stats 836. And, he can recover the remaining 4 DEX points in 30 minutes if he receives medical attention from a character with Medic-1 skill or higher.

The character is completely healed in 40 minutes. Does that sound like a gunshot wound to you?

My comment #1 stands.

Now...consider a character with stats 346 (a very viable CT character). If this character is hit by the same SMG burst, and the First Blood rule reduced the character to physicals 006, then this character HAS BEEN SHOT!

Why?

Because two stats at zero indicates a Serious Wound, and serious wounds require the medical care and healing time that you would think appropriate for gunshot wounds.

Comment #2: In order for a CT weapon to be considered to actually hit a target--a hit meaning that the weapon fired a bullet and at least one bullet slammed into the target--then at least TWO stats must go to zero for this assumption about the abstract system to be true.

Many people decry the SMG in CT saying that it's almost an automatic hit weapon, but it's really not--because the percentage damage of a SMG actually hitting and damaging a target to the point where the target could be considered "shot" is a much different percentage than the SMG being used to just hit and damage a target.

Make sense?

In addition, just as I've shown above, the CT system is abstract, and the same damage rolled can be considered differently depending on the effect that damage has on the target. The total 7 points of damage could kill a character with stats 232, but the same damage won't even be considered a real bullet hit on a character with stats 9A8.

It's an abstract system, thus TBeard's musing above are based on an invalid assumption.







Second, Classic Traveller uses a hit-and-penetrate system (just like AD&D). An SMG, fired a Short range, against an unarmored target will "hit" 100% of the time (+5 for No Armor, and +3 for Short Range).

But, as I've shown above, this is not the same as saying that an SMG will hit an damage a target so that two of the target's stats will be reduced to zero.

Therefore, at least some of the SMG's "hits" are not real hits at all. Bullets do not come into contact with flesh. In order to determine if a target is really hit by a bullet, we have to consider the effects of the weapon's damage.

All of this is illustrated above.

Now, consider a foe wearing combat armor and a character firing at him using an SMG, at Short range. Given SMG-0 as the skill for the shooter and DEX 7, the shooter needs a 9+ to "hit" the target.

You've got to remember that the roll to hit in a CT game is actually a roll to hit and damage the target. To hit and penetrate armor. What happens if the SMG character rolls a 5? Does this mean that he missed the target completely?

Maybe.

But, maybe not. Maybe bullets actually hit the target but the armor completely deflected the burst, protecting the armored foe.

We don't really know what happened....because...it's an abstract system.







Third. In real life, combatants do not stand out in the open. Soldiers are taught to move from cover to cover. I think the cover rule is overlooked so much in CT because it was absent from the LLBs. It's certainly in the Traveller Book, though, and all my Traveller gaming life, we've used the rule.

Characters who are behind cover, according to the rule, cannot be attacked. If a target exposes himself--say, when he fires back at his attacker--then he can be attacked but at a DM -4 penalty.

Comment #3: When making any comparison of CT weapons and the percentage chance that they will "hit" a target, the Cover rule should be considered (unless we're just doing static target practice) as well as the effect of damage on the target discussed above.





In Sum: CT uses an abstract combat system. Just like AD&D, a sword swing can mean little injury was caused on the target, or the same swing can mean the defender was run through with the blade. Actual bullet hits from CT weapons must be considered in the same way.

The resulting damage CT weapon hit is much more indicative of an actual bullet hit being made than just looking at the chance the weapon has to damage the target (because that damage may be minimal).

 

[Timerover51]

You are correct about both the D&D system and the Classic Traveller combat systems being abstract, although with the possibility of increase in damage points in D&D and the much slower healing in D&D, at least the 2nd Edition that I use, the AD&D system becomes a bit less abstract when it comes to recovery from wounds. Personally, I prefer using the Skirmish Wargaming combat rules of Don Featherstone, as those cover, in one table, weapons ranging from daggers to machine guns and hand grenades, with one percentile die roll determining if a hit is scored and if so, where it is located. If the target is armored on the location, the wound may be reduced or rules invalid, while if the target is in cover, and the wound is located on a body area that is in cover, it simply does not occur.

 

[tbeard1999]

A few comments...

It's an abstract system, thus TBeard's musing above are based on an invalid assumption.

Why do you wound me, Supplement Four?

And how the heck are you?

Your points are interesting, but I don't find them very persuasive. However, this is probably due to a difference in taste. Please note that I object to the CT combat system on dramatic grounds -- i just think it's way too easy to get automatic hits with certain weapons and skill combos. Automatic hits -- or automatic wounds if you prefer -- just suck the drama out for me. (Recall, too, that I run combat-intensive campaigns. Automatic hits just don't work well for me. I also object to the effect that Mercenary weapons and skill levels have on the CT system. Automatic hits become ubiquitous there. The basic CT system works adequately (barely IMHO) for Book 1 weapons and characters. It fails utterly IMHO for Book 4 weapons and characters.

So...IF you agree with me, I submit that the Double Tap (tm) system might be a pretty easy fix. But I freely admit that mileage can vary. From what I've gathered, you run a very different campaign than I do. Therefore, it should not be shocking that we might disagree ob the merits of the CT combat system.

 

[Supplement Four]

Why do you wound me, Supplement Four?

Not wounding! Spirited, friendly discussion!

And how the heck are you?

Just had my gallbladder removed. I'm at home recuperating and playing on the net. How about you, man? You doing OK? It's been a while.

Your points are interesting, but I don't find them very persuasive.

However, this is probably due to a difference in taste. Please note that I object to the CT combat system on dramatic grounds -- i just think it's way too easy to get automatic hits with certain weapons and skill combos. Automatic hits -- or automatic wounds if you prefer -- just suck the drama out for me.

Never played a lot of D&D?

Never had that conundrum where you've got a fighter with 80 hit points, and you're firing arrows at him. You're doing an average of 3 points of damage per hit (remember, in AD&D, arrows did 1d6 damage).

If we went by the number of hits, very few characters would be downed by just one or a few arrows. With this 80 hit point fighter, it's going to take, on average, 26 or 27 arrows to kill this guy!

The dude would look like a porcupine and take your entire quiver of arrows--just to down him!

We know that's not logical, right?

Thus, we have to accept that the first hit (and many after that) does not represent the arrow actually hitting and piercing the skin of the enemy. Someting else is happening, in an abstract way.

The same is true in Classic Traveller.

(Recall, too, that I run combat-intensive campaigns. Automatic hits just don't work well for me.

Reading what you want from the CT combat system, it sounds like you're looking for two things:

1. You want a character's successful attack throw to actual mean a bullet hit the foe.

2. You want the probability of successful attacks to go down so that the probabiity of attacks is the same as the probability of real world hits with guns.



As I described in my post, the CT combat system is not designed to work like this. You're wanting less abstract results from an abstract system.

Here's my suggestion to get what you want instead of messing with an extra dice throw.

1. You've got to increase the damage on weapons so that when a hit is scored, the damage inflicted will tyically represents a bullet wound instead of something less.

That means, on average, you've got to do 14 points of damage on a hit, figuring that average characters have physicals 777.

What I would do is simply increase CT damage by 1 die. Thus, a weapon that does 3D damage now does 4D.

Or, another thought is to leave damage the way it is but use the First Blood rule on every hit.


2. You want a situation where, most of the time, you players are rolling attacks but not actually hitting. In the real world, in real combat situations, soldiers typically fire a lot of bullets in order to achieve one hit.

You're going to have to think about this a bit. What you've got to do is up the target number. Make the base 8+ a different, higher number. Or, you can adjust the modifiers (seems like a lot of work this way) for range and armor so that hits are much less likely. To make it easy, you could just skew every modifier by a certain number--I'm not sure what that number is without doing some figuring.

For example, you may need to add X to all the modifiers on the CT combat chart, making it much harder to hit.


Your goal would be to create a situation where the vast majority of attack throws do not hit, but when a hit is made, that hit is devastating. Damage represented is a bullet hit. The foe needs to be downed.

(Recall, too, that I run combat-intensive campaigns.

Yes, I remember this. You like BIG DAMN HEROES fighting out in huge HOLLYWOOD STYLE COMBATS. But, if this is the case, it would seem that you would want to leave the CT combat system the way it is. As it stands, your PCs get to fire and hit a lot, but it's not as deadly as a real firefight. As you've noted, there are lots of situations where a character gets an automatic hit (an SMG at Short range) but barely scratches his target.

This is conducive to many firefights.

If you make the game deadlier, then eventually, the law of probability will catch up with your PCs and they'll be dead.

That's why I'm way OK with a hit in CT not necessarily resulting in a bullet wound. It just takes off a few hit points, just like a sword swing in D&D.






EDIT: TBeard, have you considered what you're going to do with weapons that already get more than one "attack" during a round? AutoFire weapons get two attacks per round. Some of the bigger machine guns get three attacks per round.

How does your Double Tap system adjust for this? Four attack rolls if using autofire and Six attack rolls is using a truck mounted LMG?

 

[BytePro]

...CT uses an abstract hit and damage system...

Nice post. This is how I interpreted Basic CT Combat.

Its why I went back to CT after trying newer stuff - where I found myself piling on house rules and DMs to address the dice/DM controlled 'combat simulation' approach instead of the roll driven 'combat abstraction' CT offered.

 

[Dragoner]

Other systems add even worse abstractions, like "Armor Value" which if one thinks of a ballistic vest, it really has a value between nil and infinity, an impossible value to represent. The CT to hit dice roll is actually much less abstract.

 

[aramis]

Other systems add even worse abstractions, like "Armor Value" which if one thinks of a ballistic vest, it really has a value between nil and infinity, an impossible value to represent. The CT to hit dice roll is actually much less abstract.

No, it hardly goes "to infinity"... there is a very CLEAR and discrete, and for most vests, published failure energy density.

AV is a highly reasonable extrapolation from known failure energy density.

 

[Dragoner]

No, it hardly goes "to infinity"... there is a very CLEAR and discrete, and for most vests, published failure energy density.

AV is a highly reasonable extrapolation from known failure energy density.

No, because it doesn't take into account missing the vest entirely, and the value is infinity as far as some rounds are concerned.

 

[aramis]

No, because it doesn't take into account missing the vest entirely, and the value is infinity as far as some rounds are concerned.

No, those rounds still treat it as the discrete value it is. If they hit it.

AV systems are as realistic as roll-to-deflect systems, if not more so, since most armors don't actually deflect.

Truth is, Most armor degrades when hit, and most armor does pass almost all the energy on to the wearer - but energy density transferred is what damages, not total energy shed. and armor spreads out the impact energy both across more area and across more time. But AV doesn't do blunt trauma in most versions, and doesn't degrade in most versions - a playability compromise.

Almost no worn armor deflects rounds effectively - and that's what CT mechanics imply is happening. (It's not the intent, but it is the net effect.)

The "doubletap" mechanic makes that even more clear... which is a flaw... but note that the alternative separation used by many was applying the mods from weapon vs armor to the damage taken on a hit has a very much higher rate of injury, and makes military weapons quite lethal vs unarmored targets.

 

[Dragoner]

No, those rounds still treat it as the discrete value it is. If they hit it.

AV systems are as realistic as roll-to-deflect systems, if not more so, since most armors don't actually deflect.

Truth is, Most armor degrades when hit, and most armor does pass almost all the energy on to the wearer - but energy density transferred is what damages, not total energy shed. and armor spreads out the impact energy both across more area and across more time. But AV doesn't do blunt trauma in most versions, and doesn't degrade in most versions - a playability compromise.

Almost no worn armor deflects rounds effectively - and that's what CT mechanics imply is happening. (It's not the intent, but it is the net effect.)

The "doubletap" mechanic makes that even more clear... which is a flaw... but note that the alternative separation used by many was applying the mods from weapon vs armor to the damage taken on a hit has a very much higher rate of injury, and makes military weapons quite lethal vs unarmored targets.

It is effectively infinity if the bullet can't penetrate, and nil if the there isn't coverage. All CT does is to say the attack does no damage if the to hit is missed, which even if it hits, it doesn't penetrate; which is better than averaging a number between nil and infinity. In reality there isn't an "armor value" to anything, and to use the concept for vehicles is worse. Degrading values would be assuming the attack struck the exact same area, which is unlikely; AV is too many assumptions for little return.

 

[Antaine]

I've shot a deer mid jump through it's lungs at 150m and I'm not the best shot in the world. How much shooting have you done?

Was the deer shooting back? Your shooting needs to move to a new level if you want to replicate that standard in combat.

Edit to add: I didn't realise this thread was so old. I re-read all the posts and mate, I can plainly see that you've seen zero time in any sort of situation that would allow you to talk on the subject of combat shooting or armour values for that matter with any real knowledge despite your bandying around terms such as "baselines".

Just so you know my "baseline", I am a qualified Rifleman, a Small Arms Instructor and Coach and a Survivor of real world combat.

Cheers,

 

[Dragoner]

Was the deer shooting back?

Of course it was, and of course you are, very informative post.

 

[Antaine]

Of course it was, and of course you are, very informative post.

I'll take this to PM to avoid cluttering the board and detracting from the thread.

Cheers,

 

[Antaine]

More Informatative...

Let me try to impart a little more information here ...

When you find yourself in a "Contact" a few things will happen. The important ones are physiological in nature and the biggest one is the shot of adrenaline that your noradrenal glands dump directly into your blood system from where they sit atop your kidneys.

One of the big issues with a huge adrenaline hit is that fine motor control disappears straight out the window and you now have to rely on gross muscle movement to perform fine motor skills such as applying the 4 principles of marksmanship.

So the adrenaline levels are already up and the next shot of the stuff (after the next volley or explosion) makes everything so much harder to do. Then factor in the screaming, yelling of orders, constant movement, assessing and reassessing your surroundings/situation, especially if you are in a leadership role from Squad/Section level or higher and then directing your troops as well as fighting for yourself.

People may or may not be already injured and possibly dead and rounds a screaming around you and you don't have the time to figure out if it's friendly or hostile fire in the initial few seconds. it IS pandemonium!!! Seconds last hours and hours could be a lifetime. SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO KILL YOU!!!!

You WILL shoot high! You WILL jerk the trigger and you will NOT aim properly if at all as you try to deal with the information overload, the adrenaline and the absolute fear and you also have to DO YOUR JOB!

In game terms, a 41% To Hit without DM's seems a little generous to me.

Equating shooting a dumb animal or paper targets with combat shooting then saying it's all the same is like saying a freshwater lake is the same as an ocean. It's also insulting to Veterans to equate hunting experiences with actual combat experience and anyone who does so should be ashamed of themselves!

Cheers,

 

[Dragoner]

So I take it that is a dig at me? Nice. Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote, you might understand it better.

An FYI about "combat" and note that I'm not talking about page 30, is that one is taught in both your 1st year of MH and later in LDC, only about 1 in 8 soldiers actually fire their weapon in battle, the rest duck and cover. For that one, the adrenaline sharpens their reflexes, same as in why not just anyone can race an automobile, it is the adrenaline junky factor maybe; also why one is taught to focus on the crew served weapons and try to make sure your shooter has the MG.

In battle, most fires are at nothing, or some very small dot in the distance; official statistics put the rate of enemy casualties to rounds fired in the 1 to20-30,000 category (there is a physics discussion in there as well about how much energy one puts into an area, eg: HE is more efficient). Tanks are similar, for example CC standard during a ford is to put overwatching fires from the coax's on the treeline or structures so as to not get clotheslined by a sagger.

As far as for what the weapon-2 average ct shooter will hit at 6+, paper is a pretty good example. It is in battle, as I said, one begins to apply some hefty negative dm's.

 

[Shadowfax]

And have any of you figures abou how armor affects the casualties in combat?

Does it reduce the number of casualties? the number of serious wounds/fatalities in combat?

I don't, but those figures could be useful to know how to represent armor in CT (or any other Traveller version, for what is worth) combat rules.

Armor reduces the number of casualties until the enemy starts using explosives. If you are get nailed by a big IED, no armor helps vs. that.