HG optional agility rule

[Masconi]

In HG2, the agility rating of a target ship is a direct defensive to-hit modifier.

Because of this, fighters usually can not hit each other.

Example:
A: TL 14 Fighter, 1 Fusion Gun, Agility 6, Computer 2
B: TL 14 Fighter, 3 Beam Laser, Agility 5, Computer 3

A fires at B(short range):
to hit=6+
DM's:
Computer: -1
Size: -2
Agility: -5
So, you need a 14 to hit; no chance

B fires at A(short Range):
to hit=6+
DM's:
Computer: +1
Size: -2
Agility: -6
So, you need a 13 to hit, again no chance

The optional rule would be, that a target gets the defensive DM for agility ONLY, if it's agility rating is higher than that of the firer.
The defensive DM allowed in this case is the difference between the target and firer agility.

Now....

A fires at B(short range):
to hit=6+
DM's:
Computer: -1
Size: -2
Agility: n/a (because the targets agility is lower than the firers agility)
You now need a 9 to hit

B fires at A(short Range):
to hit=6+
DM's:
Computer: +1
Size: -2
Agility: -1
You now need a 8 to hit

The reason is, that a firing ship with an equal or higher agility than the target ship can counter/mirror the evasive maneuvers of the target.

One could apply this optional rule to small craft only, or to all ships.

Does this rule make sense, or would it "break" the HG2 combat system???

Thanks.

Masconi

 

[far-trader]

The reason is, that a firing ship with an equal or higher agility than the target ship can counter/mirror the evasive maneuvers of the target.

Given that reasoning I'd instead simply say "Apply the difference in agility as a DM to hit." and change your example to:

A fires at B(short range):
to hit=6+
DM's:
Computer: -1
Size: -2
Agility: +1 (because the targets agility is lower than the firers agility)
You now need a 8 to hit

The reason being that the more agile ship is able to get in a better position to attack.

One could apply this optional rule to small craft only, or to all ships.

It would have to apply to all sizes of ships.

Does this rule make sense, or would it "break" the HG2 combat system???

Difficult to say at a glance. Worth examining though. Thanks for sharing.

Personally I don't think agility has a place in the type of space combat Traveller should be attempting to game. Not at the time, distance, and size scales used.

Agility has always seemed like a broken rule all around in more ways than one.

 

[The Oz]

I don't know if it "makes sense," as I understand it the Agility modifier is there to allow for the distance the target can put between where it was and where it will be by the time the weapon arrives (the distances that TRAVELLER ships engage at even allows dodging laser beams, given the speed-of-light lag). Copying the movement of the enemy can't remove this problem.

I prefer the idea of the "Visual Range" attack rule: add a third combat range inside close range where the ships have closed so much that the speed-of-light lag is minimal, which would remove Agility (and maybe also relative computer differences, since you're close enough to visually ID targets?) from the "to-hit" equation. But I would also say that "Visual Range" attacks can't use spinal mounts (too difficult to bring them to bear). All together such a rule would make smaller craft much more dangerous in HG combat.

If you don't like the idea of a third combat range, make it an option available to ships at Close Range: a commander commits ships to "Visual Range Attack" as part of the Pre-Combat Decision Step (after the combat range for that round has been determined to be Close Range), all such ships committed to "Visual Range Attack" cannot fire (except defensively) in the normal Combat Step, but after all normal fire has been completed the "Visual Range Attack" ships may fire offensively at any enemy ship (including enemy ships committed to "Visual Range Attack"). Ships attacked by "Visual Range" enemies may fire defensively with any unfired batteries.

How's that sound?

 

[BillDowns]

I prefer the idea of the "Visual Range" attack rule: add a third combat range inside close range ...snip...

I have long used this scheme, but I tend to call it "Knife" range

Like yours, I have spinal mounts as useless, but I add a few other options in there. Bays are -2 when they fire. Relative Computer rating is halved. Firing at a Ship Size 0 gets you a -2, Ship Sizes 1-3 get you a -1.

Oh, and these latter size rules require limiting armor by ship size, too. Otherwise, you can't kill these little suckers.

 

[Jacqual]

When talking Fighters Vs. Fighters I wouldnt even consider the -2 Size Modifier, I would use a Piloting Vs. Piloting roll for position of attack and let the margin of success be the modifier to hit. As Everyone knows bad combat pilots do not live long in a Dogfight. This would directly effect the hits needed in the roll's of 13 or 14 with no size mode drop to 11 or 12 and the piloting roll success would lower that by the margin of success. I would keep the size modifiers for large ships firing on fighters as I think that was the original intention meant. When you have these 1Kton and larger vessels firing on sub 100 ton fighters. You have great big ships firing at these annoying little bugs. But that is just my take on it.

 

[pierangelo]

When talking Fighters Vs. Fighters I wouldnt even consider the -2 Size Modifier, I would use a Piloting Vs. Piloting roll for position of attack and let the margin of success be the modifier to hit. As Everyone knows bad combat pilots do not live long in a Dogfight. This would directly effect the hits needed in the roll's of 13 or 14 with no size mode drop to 11 or 12 and the piloting roll success would lower that by the margin of success. I would keep the size modifiers for large ships firing on fighters as I think that was the original intention meant. When you have these 1Kton and larger vessels firing on sub 100 ton fighters. You have great big ships firing at these annoying little bugs. But that is just my take on it.

of all the ideas i have heard on how to deal with fighters not being able to hit each other I like this one the best! and I will borrow it thank you very much.

It has always bothered me to no end that on the onehand fighters cannot kill each other but on the other hand have no problem hull scrapping a dreadnaught with minimal casualties. kinda lame.

Also if you build a class of 1kt fighter hunting frigate with a missile bays it can barely hit the fighters anyways but in return cannot be hit by the fighters' wimpier USP1 or 2 batteries. The frigate can happily be blasting away all day to kill only a few fighters. Thank god they did not include ammunition rules for missile systems in HG!

Of course then you send in your medium ships to kill the frigates and they get scraped by the fighters.

To be honest fighters seem to be amazingly deadly upto TL12 after that they become buggy whips - and thats fine as far as I am concerned. Then the light and medium fighting ships come more into their own.

Mind you, you can build an impressive fighter at TL15. A 75tn TL15 fighter with a bridge and lv9 computer 15 armor and agility 6 is very doable. Its only problem is that the wimpy factor3 missile battery is all but useless at this TL. Oh and this fighter is very very expensive.

 

[Jacqual]

If you wanted to increase the threat a Fighter would be to say a Capital Ship, you can have them attack the turrets. All the pictures I have seen that show Laser Turrets show the weapons sticking out of them. Are those weapons sticking out from the turrets have full ship armor or do the have less protection then that nice flat section of hull around them. That of course is something to use a Homebrew rule on of course. Another thing you can do is strap like a single shot or double shot missile on the fighter like how they put torpedoes and bombs on fighters in WW2 those were only good on Big Ships and Stationary Land Targets and useless on other fighters. This would give them a little more use in a complex space battle and make the gunners on the defending ships a little nervous when they started flying. This is just a thought of course but one of the things about Traveller is the creativity it allows the GM's that run the games. Another thing to consider what would happen if these fighters started firing missiles up the barrels of these capital ships Spinal Mount Weapons I'm thinking that they cant be armored like everything else and the mod to hit will be pretty big, as well as the shot itself being dangerous wouldnt wanna be in the zone when that baby fired. All in all I do believe with some creative thinking Fighters in Traveller have some very good uses and lots of strength in combat not given to them by most. just something for everyone to think about I guess.

 

[dccarles]

...Another thing you can do is strap like a single shot or double shot missile on the fighter like how they put torpedoes and bombs on fighters in WW2 those were only good on Big Ships and Stationary Land Targets and useless on other fighters. This would give them a little more use in a complex space battle and make the gunners on the defending ships a little nervous when they started flying...

I wish we could scrap the term 'fighter' entirely. High Guard fighters are not Second World War aircraft or analagous to Star Wars. There is no 'dogfighting'. They are much more like big craft, only smaller.

There's nothing to stop people from adding house rules to make Traveller suit their own concept, but many of the suggestions I see to make fighters more effective in combat seem to be based on the theory that big warship designers are catastrophically stupid. While this may happen in special cases (see 'thermal exhaust port, vulnerabilities of') it's not likely that spinal mount weapon openings would be left so vulnerable to laser fire.

A very simple countermeasure would be to have the last fifty meters of the weapon tube simply be an armoured pipe, making off-angle hits on the weapon port harmless. Or, for meson guns, have no weapon port at all.

--Devin

 

[Jacqual]

I'm posting these ideas as a roleplaying format, and not a tactical format. As for Fighters firing at turrets and such on larger ships that idea came from virtually every illustration made of traveller warships showing turrets showing the weapons protuding from them. The illustration's of the Azhanti High lightning all show the barrel of the meson spinal mount weapon protuding from it. This barrel is hollow in the illustrations, basing fighter combat on what is shown in the illustrations and working towards a roleplaying format Fighters are combat viable. In a roleplaying enviroment there are dogfight's, if you are into trillion credit squadren then ya fighters are most likely useless. But in CT they are there and in roleplaying they have uses. The bases of the game is to have fun if someone is having fun with fighter vs fighter combat then I say go for it and have fun. If CT didnt want fighters then why are they there, there is a reason for them I feel the reason is for fun and entertainment. I cannot read MWM mind and I do not think I am I also dont see why someone can get upset over my placing them in a catagory like WW2 fighters I did that to give someone a suggestion on how they can use fighters in a game. If fighters are like bigger ships only smaller then why are they almost useless in any combat situation against larger ships unless they have a use. If that use is to only fight other fighters no one would ever field one why would they, they cant be used against large ships, dont work vs ground troops with having some lasers, they would work against hover tanks but so would someone in battledress and a FGMP-15 or any man portable AT weapon. Fighters are in the game for a reason to spark imagination and have fun be creative. Look at BSG on TV lots of fighters there those fighters are used to fight large ships takes forever for a fighter to destroy one, they fly in and fire at weapon turrets preventing the large ship from defending itself and allowing another large ship to come in and fire with its large weapons and take it out. Whats wrong with that It allows a little more imagination into the game which is always a good thing. Im not a wargamer Im a roleplayer. I almost never run ship combat in my games my players either run or surrender since my games are not military in nature that works wonders. As a player if I was playing a military game I think i would have more fun in a fighter then being a gunner on a capital ship. More things to do jockey for a good postion while making observation rolls to prevent becoming a target, then making attack runs shooting other fighters down all vs. Im a gunner lets sit and wait till the target is in my line of fire then shoot again and again vs the other big ship since fighters have no value i cant even shoot at them.

 

[Whipsnade]

I'm posting these ideas as a roleplaying format, and not a tactical format.

Jacqual,

That makes good sense. Traveller is primarily a role-playing game.

As for Fighters firing at turrets and such on larger ships that idea came from virtually every illustration made of traveller warships showing turrets showing the weapons protuding from them.

I would think the "idea" came from the fact that fighter-sized weapons primarily damage a ship's hull. Hence the repetitive fuel and weapon hits on the Surface Explosion Table.

Fighters are combat viable.

Below certain tech levels and against certain opponents, yes.

In a roleplaying enviroment there are dogfight's, if you are into trillion credit squadren then ya fighters are most likely useless.

Fighters are useful in TCS below certain tech levels.

But in CT they are there and in roleplaying they have uses. The bases of the game is to have fun if someone is having fun with fighter vs fighter combat then I say go for it and have fun.

Agreed.

If CT didnt want fighters then why are they there, there is a reason for them I feel the reason is for fun and entertainment.

Now you're confusing LBB:2 space combat and HG2 space combat. The two are not same and each emphasize different things. Fighters are useful in LBB:2 combat because that book deals with player level battles. Fighters are less useful in HG2 combat because that book deals with large scale battles.

I also dont see why someone can get upset over my placing them in a catagory like WW2 fighters I did that to give someone a suggestion on how they can use fighters in a game.

Perhaps because your analogy is wholly false and based on mistaken assumptions? You're confusing labels with the actual rules. If I call an apple a banana, it magically doesn't make the apple a banana. Fighters have one role in LBB:2 combat and another in HG2 combat. Those roles differ, however, and you're assuming they do not.

If fighters are like bigger ships only smaller then why are they almost useless in any combat situation against larger ships unless they have a use.

They are deadly to larger ships below certain tech levels and migrate to other roles afterwards.

... dont work vs ground troops with having some lasers, they would work against hover tanks but so would someone in battledress and a FGMP-15 or any man portable AT weapon.

Oddly enough, that's one of the roles fighters migrate towards. Another role makes them deadly to player-sized ships.

Fighters are in the game for a reason to spark imagination and have fun be creative.

Of course they are.

Look at BSG...

Traveller is not BSG. Let me repeat that because you obviously didn't get the memo:

Traveller is not Battlestar Galactica.

There are important technical differences between the two. You can modify Traveller for use as BSG, but you cannot play Traveller "straight" as BSG.

It allows a little more imagination into the game which is always a good thing.

Imagination is always a good thing and you can make fighters deadly to large ships merely by capping tech levels. You needn't rope in scads of house rules to do so.

Im not a wargamer Im a roleplayer.

That's fairly obvious.

I almost never run ship combat in my games...

Then you've never actually applied any of the suggestions you've made in this thread, right?

More things to do jockey for a good postion...

Yes, pilot skill is important in LBB:2 space combat.

... while making observation rolls to prevent becoming a target...

This is the CT forum. CT has no observation rolls of that type.

... then making attack runs shooting other fighters down all...

Yes, gunnery is an important skill in LBB:2 space combat. Of course, you can either pilot or shoot in a single combat turn. Take your pick.

Im a gunner lets sit and wait till the target is in my line of fire then shoot again and again vs the other big ship since fighters have no value i cant even shoot at them.

As a gunner in a big ship, you'll be shooting at a number of different targets from turn to turn like missiles, other large ships, and even fighters as the situation warrants. (Also, weapons aboard large ships also don't normally have to wait for a "line of fire" either.) Anyway, if fighters are dangerous to your ship, and at certain tech levels they are, you'll be shooting at them as often as you can.

Complaints about the relative "lack" of roleplaying opportunities in HG2 ignore the basic nature of the wargame. You might as well grouse that a bassoon has no strings. Complaints about the relative "uselessness" of "fighters" in HG2 ignore both tech level effects and scale issues.

Finally, as Devin wisely pointed out, the label "fighter" carries very powerful connotations that some people let blind them to the game's reality.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Jacqual]

I would think the "idea" came from the fact that fighter-sized weapons primarily damage a ship's hull. Hence the repetitive fuel and weapon hits on the Surface Explosion Table.

No I was referring to my earlier idea that all of the illustrations I have seen showing turrets in Traveller have weapons protuding from them, which was how I said it and exactly how I meant it. You may be referring to rules in the game where I am actually referring to illustrations.

Perhaps because your analogy is wholly false and based on mistaken assumptions? You're confusing labels with the actual rules. If I call an apple a banana, it magically doesn't make the apple a banana. Fighters have one role in LBB:2 combat and another in HG2 combat. Those roles differ, however, and you're assuming they do not.

And this refers to my statement of reference by using something that can be visualized by the readers as an example of something that could be done. Even in the Traveller universe I do not see why someone could not attach a larger then normal warhead to an unguided rocket for a bigger bang on a Fighter.

Traveller is not BSG. Let me repeat that because you obviously didn't get the memo:

Traveller is not Battlestar Galactica.

There are important technical differences between the two. You can modify Traveller for use as BSG, but you cannot play Traveller "straight" as BSG.

Ok if you read my statement you would have understood I was referring to the role that the Fighters have in BSG, not that Traveller is BSG or that BSG is Traveller. If you look at BSG from the standpoint of a player level military campaign regardless of the tech differences which yes there are many. The role of the Fighter plays a very large part in space combat the same is true in Bab5 which yes is not Traveller. I am referring to the role of fighters again in a player level game.

Then you've never actually applied any of the suggestions you've made in this thread, right?
Wrong I have used space combat just not as much as others have, the space combat I have used is yes on a player level not a huge tactical scale.

This is the CT forum. CT has no observation rolls of that type.

And yes I agree that CT does not have observation rules, I have house rules for observation rolls. So I have some homebrew rules in my CT Im sorry if that offends you to no end but I honestly feel that I am not the only referee that has a house rule or 2.

Now can I ask you 1 question if you were running a player level military game and the players were Fighter pilots would you have Dogfights or would they just fire at each other? I have the feeling that you would want your game to be as exciting as it could which would have players on the edge of the seat.

 

[Whipsnade]

No I was referring to my earlier idea that all of the illustrations I have seen showing turrets in Traveller have weapons protuding from them, which was how I said it and exactly how I meant it. You may be referring to rules in the game where I am actually referring to illustrations.

Jaqual,

Games have rules. Illustrations are not rules.

And this refers to my statement of reference by using something that can be visualized by the readers as an example of something that could be done. Even in the Traveller universe I do not see why someone could not attach a larger then normal warhead to an unguided rocket for a bigger bang on a Fighter.

There is SS:3, a book of rules which allows the GM to construct all sorts of different types of missiles. However, if fighters IYTU can get close enough to a warship to routinely hit it with an unguided rocket, you're playing a home-brewed version of the game that is very different from any other. Traveller technology would make such an attack suicidal unless you change many fundamental aspects of the game.

If you have changed those aspects I think we'd all like to hear about it. It would make for an interesting variant.

Ok if you read my statement you would have understood I was referring to the role that the Fighters have in BSG, not that Traveller is BSG or that BSG is Traveller.

You wote about how fun fighters are in a BSG setting and said they should also be fun in a Traveller setting. The problem is that BSG and Traveller have very different technical assumptions. Fighters in Traveller cannot be as "fun" or be used like fighters in BSG unless you change the underlying technical assumptions greatly.

Again, how you made those changes would be very interesting to read.

Wrong I have used space combat just not as much as others have, the space combat I have used is yes on a player level not a huge tactical scale.

You first wrote that your players either run or surrender. Fighters can be a lot of fun in player-scale combat because fighters are deadly in player-scale combat without needing to change the rules whatsoever.

And yes I agree that CT does not have observation rules, I have house rules for observation rolls. So I have some homebrew rules in my CT Im sorry if that offends you to no end but I honestly feel that I am not the only referee that has a house rule or 2.

I use house rules. We all use house rules. We all don't assume that we all use the same house rules or even know what house rules we all use.

As with the changes you've made to Traveller's underlying technical assumptions, I would love to hear about your house rules for observation rolls. I think such a rule could add a lot to a CT-based game.

Now can I ask you 1 question if you were running a player level military game and the players were Fighter pilots would you have Dogfights or would they just fire at each other?

My players were wargamers and roleplayers. As such, they understood and were comfortable with the rules and the technical assumptions underlying those rules. They didn't come to Traveller wanting it to be like Star Wars or B5. They didn't think their fun was dependent on Traveller incorporating elements from Star Wars or B5, just like they didn't think they fun would depend on incorporating elements from Star Trek. They came to the table without too many presumptions.

I have the feeling that you would want your game to be as exciting as it could which would have players on the edge of the seat.

I think my games were exciting. I had several long term RPG groups and by long term I mean 1+ years. LBB:2 or HG2 space combat can be very exciting, if handled correctly. I used the map & chit maneuvering methods from Mayday for both too.

My players never expressed any desire to "dogfight" or be a fighter jockey. That was due in part to their understanding of Traveller's underlying technical asuumptions and due in part to the fact that, as either active or ex-military personnel, playing active military personnel had no fascination for them. The nearest I got to running an active military campaign was running a merc campaign and running an IISS campaign.

Summing up both my posts here:

- Fighters are fun and can be fun without any rule changes.
- Fighters have very different roles at different tech levels.
- Fighters have very different roles in player-level combat and large-scale combat.

And the most important bit:

- I'd love to hear about the various changes you made to Traveller's underlying technical assumptions so that fighters could better suit your players' needs.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Jeffr0]

Oh no! It's the...

CANONISTA BOLD BEAT STICK OF DEATH!

Run for your life!

 

[Jacqual]

As I am now at work I do not have all my rulebooks with me but I will give you a rundown on my Homebrew Observation rule. Generally speaking when an attribute is needed to govern Observation it is Intelligence. 1 point in observation is gained for every 2 terms (3 for scouts see below for why) in a characters career in chargen. the observation bonus is based on his career a character in a military career gets to use his observation points in combat and battlefield type encounters. For like spotting ambush points and someone sneaking up. While someone with a medical career would get the observation to spot things that would show up under their specifics. A merchant might spot a better deal on something that isnt actively being sold but might be purchased for the right price anyways. The reason a scout is different is couse they almost always get the observation skill as the high varity of things they had to do in their career to survive it. It is a minor adjustment and I put it in to effect to stop how come I didnt see that coming and other things that i am sure alot of you have had in your games. And for the fighters being able to routinely hit with unguided bombs well it is not an easy roll nor is it routine If i remeber I lowered the agility by 1 and manuever by 1 for the added weight and as for the ships getting shoot out of the sky see the OP's statement about the rolls needed, and the size modifier. Shooting fighters out of the sky by big ole capital ships are not a 2+ on 2D6 couse like I said before if it was who would make a fighter.

 

[Whipsnade]

As I am now at work I do not have all my rulebooks with me but I will give you a rundown on my Homebrew Observation rule. (big snip of intriguing material)

Jacqual,

I find your homebrewed observation rule very, very interesting. It's delightfully simple, yet not simplistic, directly tied to a character's experience through terms, and doesn't seem too over powering. Your method would be well worth considering for inclusion in a game.

I've seen a few wargames and RPGs with vaguely similar mechanisms. XTR published a Gettysburg game that had a Fortune of War chit. The holder could use the FoW chit to reroll a die or get other "do-overs". After using the chit, he'd then had to hand it over to his opponent. CT has the Jack-of-all-trades skill which could be vaguely analogous to your observation roll method. GURPS has a number of cinematic advantages that are vaguely analogous too.

Your tying the the observation roll to a character's INT stat is something I like very much. Experience should only count if you're smart enough to develop and use it, right?

Not cluttering up the method with restrictions for differing careers was good thinking. Am I correct in assuming that a PC could use their gained observation points in tasks related to their career field and whatever other tasks they could make a good argument for?

Just how did the observation roll work? You said it involved INT. Did you have to roll over your INT? Roll under it? Make an opposed roll with the GM?


Regards,
Bill

P.S. I've taken this thread pretty far off topic. We should create a new thread in the IMTU forum to discuss your Observation idea further.

 

[Jacqual]

I have buried away somewhere the full description but I based the Int modifiers I believe were the same as the benifits/penalty of strength when using a blade Minumum Int=5 or a -2 to roll Int=9+ granted +1 to roll and the weakened modifier was a -2 for like being intox or illness affecting mental abilities. This was being you needed to be smart enough to know what was happening, and if you was very smart you knew a little bit more of your situation. And yes if a player could make a good solid argument as to why they would get the roll then they would get one. I had to make it harder for scouts to get the skill as they see such a variety in chargen that where would they not get the roll. As they can be considered a combat/pilot/medical career they might even see some merchanting when they needed certain supplies in the career.

Copied and moved to IMTU forum new thread started.