HG or MT starship combat SW
- Thread starter theSea
- Start date
As much as I like the idea of vector movement, I'm open to the idea that a good simulator doesn't need it.
Instead you might just specify certain combat zones, eg;
On the surface (agility = 0 regardless)
0 km up.
In the atmosphere(agility severly restricted)
0-100 km up.
Low orbit (agility restricted)
100-1000 km up
high orbit (agility moderately restricted)
1000-10,000 km
Deep space (no agility resrictions)
100,000+ km
Also:
Asteroid field (reduced agility and targeting)
Gas Giant orbiting
Movement would be from one zone to another. different modifiers apply to each, and ships or squadrons of a given fleet can move seperately to each, zone. Changing zones may take more than one turn depending upon speed.
Once in deep space there would also have to be a directional vector, towards or away from the enemy.
Sensible?
Instead you might just specify certain combat zones, eg;
On the surface (agility = 0 regardless)
0 km up.
In the atmosphere(agility severly restricted)
0-100 km up.
Low orbit (agility restricted)
100-1000 km up
high orbit (agility moderately restricted)
1000-10,000 km
Deep space (no agility resrictions)
100,000+ km
Also:
Asteroid field (reduced agility and targeting)
Gas Giant orbiting
Movement would be from one zone to another. different modifiers apply to each, and ships or squadrons of a given fleet can move seperately to each, zone. Changing zones may take more than one turn depending upon speed.
Once in deep space there would also have to be a directional vector, towards or away from the enemy.
Sensible?
A lot depends on what you want to simulate. If you just want to fight a couple of ships and get a result, that abstraction works fine.
If you want a gripping tactical combat in which your RPG players can be involved, that bites! (IMO)
It really all depends on what you are after. Some groups are happy with entirely cinematic combat with no maps. Some folks who play RPGs actually *hate* maps and figures, feeling it takes from the imagination part. OTOH, I find it adds choice, decision, and options. And I find it leads to less confusion and people all work on the same vision of what is happening (or closer to it).
So I prefer a detailed combat that gives the PCs plenty of time to get a hand in....
If you want a gripping tactical combat in which your RPG players can be involved, that bites! (IMO)
It really all depends on what you are after. Some groups are happy with entirely cinematic combat with no maps. Some folks who play RPGs actually *hate* maps and figures, feeling it takes from the imagination part. OTOH, I find it adds choice, decision, and options. And I find it leads to less confusion and people all work on the same vision of what is happening (or closer to it).
So I prefer a detailed combat that gives the PCs plenty of time to get a hand in....
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi,
the first impressions I get from using my own simulation software is indeed, that the combat results are (oh what a surprise) strongly related to the maneuver cabilities of the ships.
But at least the resulting avantages / disadvantages could be also packed into DMs on combat tasks. So the actual vector movement could be exchanged just by using an appropriate statistical modifier. Combat results would be (statistically) the same.
So, this would work quite well for my computer vs. computer model.
As far a real tactics comes into play - when playing with real players, this exchange becomes more difficult.....
Referring to my player groups this level of abstraction sometimes simply is not accepted, because they wanted see whats going on.
I´m still looking for a pretty compromise between abstraction and good roleplaying in starship combat movement.
Regards,
Mert
the first impressions I get from using my own simulation software is indeed, that the combat results are (oh what a surprise) strongly related to the maneuver cabilities of the ships.
But at least the resulting avantages / disadvantages could be also packed into DMs on combat tasks. So the actual vector movement could be exchanged just by using an appropriate statistical modifier. Combat results would be (statistically) the same.
So, this would work quite well for my computer vs. computer model.
As far a real tactics comes into play - when playing with real players, this exchange becomes more difficult.....
Referring to my player groups this level of abstraction sometimes simply is not accepted, because they wanted see whats going on.
I´m still looking for a pretty compromise between abstraction and good roleplaying in starship combat movement.
Regards,
Mert
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
Long ago we started that topic
Now - if you want - you may have a look at TestDrive.
Thats a space combat sim software working with MT ship stats and most of the given rules.
It works to a large degree, is free and as always complete with an executabel and project/source files.
And I will keep on working on that, perhaps mostly because to do some fun programming
Regards,
Mert
Long ago we started that topic
Now - if you want - you may have a look at TestDrive.
Thats a space combat sim software working with MT ship stats and most of the given rules.
It works to a large degree, is free and as always complete with an executabel and project/source files.
And I will keep on working on that, perhaps mostly because to do some fun programming
Regards,
Mert
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Very nice!
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
Would it be allowed to adapt this software to incorporate T20 space combat rules ?
Hunter ?
Regards,
Mert
Would it be allowed to adapt this software to incorporate T20 space combat rules ?
Hunter ?
Regards,
Mert
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Any progress?
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
Regarding Hunter...no reply...
I actually working on a feature to allow easier online editing of the stats.
Other "want to dos" are:
- usage of skill values and tactical skill pool
- improve movement "intelligence"
I wonder, if it would be more interesting to allow multi-ship combat first, and then flesh out details ?
What do you thing ?
Regards,
Mert
Regarding Hunter...no reply...
I actually working on a feature to allow easier online editing of the stats.
Other "want to dos" are:
- usage of skill values and tactical skill pool
- improve movement "intelligence"
I wonder, if it would be more interesting to allow multi-ship combat first, and then flesh out details ?
What do you thing ?
Regards,
Mert
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
Ok. Hunter, thanks for the clarification.
So, I got a T20 rulebook but I might need a "rules" consultant in order to explain some bits
Mert
Ok. Hunter, thanks for the clarification.
So, I got a T20 rulebook but I might need a "rules" consultant in order to explain some bits
Mert
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi folks !
I just started to implement fleet battles in the software.
Upcoming problem is to prgramatically answer the question:
Which ship should be attacked with which weapon ?
I dont want to do that in a dumb or random way.
So, I thought about generating a target ranking list, evaluating to hit and to pen probabilities and potential damage effects. (Well, I am not exactly sure how the generate the scores).
Now, are there any tactical rules, which should be considered here, too ?
Any experienced fleet adminrals out there ?
Regards,
Mert
I just started to implement fleet battles in the software.
Upcoming problem is to prgramatically answer the question:
Which ship should be attacked with which weapon ?
I dont want to do that in a dumb or random way.
So, I thought about generating a target ranking list, evaluating to hit and to pen probabilities and potential damage effects. (Well, I am not exactly sure how the generate the scores).
Now, are there any tactical rules, which should be considered here, too ?
Any experienced fleet adminrals out there ?
Regards,
Mert
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
Which system are you talking about. I do have a bit of experience with Traveller Ship combat. (I found that before T20 Mayday using the HG or MT charts worked well for ship combat.) The players were happy, they could see where the enemy was, etc. (Though they did tend to get frustrated at fighters not being able to hit each other.) T20 Combat tends to be fast and very dirty, especially on the fleet level. Almost as deadly as CT personal combat.
As for picking targets? The biggest targets get hit by Meson fire first.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Bhoins is right: the first target should usually be the enemy meson guns. The only reason you might not aim at them first would be if your own force didn't have any big ships for the enemy meson guns to kill. If all you have is a flock of missile boats then you'd aim at the biggest single concentration of enemy missiles (which is likely to be a ship with a meson gun, anyway).
The point is you aim at what will most quickly reduce his ability to damage your own force. The only exception to this is aiming to kill something that will prevent the enemy from completing his mission. If he's here to invade your homeworld, you take every shot at his assault ships you can get. If you're raiding his repair base you shoot up the base until it's gone.
The point is you aim at what will most quickly reduce his ability to damage your own force. The only exception to this is aiming to kill something that will prevent the enemy from completing his mission. If he's here to invade your homeworld, you take every shot at his assault ships you can get. If you're raiding his repair base you shoot up the base until it's gone.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
Thanks so far.
Theoretically the meson gun equipped ships should get a high target score in the ranking calculation...will have to try.
Right now it dealing with the MT space combat rules, but I will convert it to HG next (leaving away movement, its fairly similar to MT).
Then I will surely step toward T20, but actually I am not familar enough with the T20 ruleset.
Thanks so far.
Theoretically the meson gun equipped ships should get a high target score in the ranking calculation...will have to try.
Right now it dealing with the MT space combat rules, but I will convert it to HG next (leaving away movement, its fairly similar to MT).
Then I will surely step toward T20, but actually I am not familar enough with the T20 ruleset.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
The problems I have had with MT and HG rules is the charts are set up for big ship combat. And the small ship combat is pretty much FUBAR. For example two, typical, equal fighters can't hit each other. Small ship combat is quite often, spending quite a bit of time trying to roll a 10 or better. The LArge ships work fairly well, and predictably.
In T20 the small ship combat works fairly well but if anything it is too easy to hit. The big ship combat is even worse FUBAR.
Of course that is strictly IMHO.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
IMHO fighters need to be grouped together to be effective, especially in HG or MT combat. How to group them depends on the level of combat being simulated. If it's ship on ship (or at most small squadrons shooting at each other) then I'd group into squadrons of 10 fighters and treat that squadron as a single ship. If it's true fleet level combat being simulated then the fighters might do better being grouped into wings of 100 fighters, still being treated as a single ship. By grouping them and adding their weapons together into batteries you increase their ability to hit things (at least a little) although the computer differences usually make it hard for them to hit real warships.
