High Guard 3

[The Oz]

Here's what I've done on an abstract combat system.

Abstract Naval Combat System

Assume two forces, one designated Intruder, the other Native. If using this with forces from a campaign game, usually the force owning the area where the battle takes place is the Native. Pirates should usually be designated as the Intruder unless defending their base.

First you determine the characteristics of the two forces engaged. Then combat is resolved between elements of those two forces. An element could be a small detachment or it could be the entire force. When combat involves only small elements it is assumed that the two forces are skirmishing for information and position during the time represented by the combat.

Step #1: Determine the type of each force.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Force Type Table (1d6)
Roll Type
1 Pirates
2 System Navy
3 System Navy
4 Subsector Navy
5 Subsector Navy
6 Imperial Navy</pre>[/QUOTE]Step #2: Find the Tech Level and Efficiency for each force.

Force Tech Level: (1d3+6+DMs) (roll 1d6 and divide by two, rounding up)

DMs: +3 if Pirates, +4 if Subsector Navy, +6 if Imperial Navy

Force Efficiency: (1d6+DMs)

DMs: +1 if Subsector Navy, +2 if Imperial Navy, +3 if Pirates

Step #3: Find the mission and size of each force. The size of the engaged forces may be predetermined by the players or set up as part of a campaign.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Mission Table (1d6+DMs)
Roll Mission
1- Strike
2 Battle
3 Siege
4 Patrol
5 Patrol
6 Patrol
7+ Patrol</pre>[/QUOTE]DMs: +1 if Native, -1 if Intruder, +1 if System Navy, -1 if Imperial Navy, -2 if Pirates
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Force Size Table (1d6+DMs)
Roll Tonnage Unit Equivalent
-1 500 tons Corvette
0 1,000 tons Destroyer Escort
1 2,000 tons Corvette Div/Destroyer
2 5,000 tons Destroyer Escort Div/Fleet Escort
3 10,000 tons Destroyer Escort Sqdn/Destroyer Div
4 20,000 tons Destroyer Sqdn/Fleet Escort Div/Lt. Cruiser
5 50,000 tons Fleet Escort Sqdn/Lt. Cruiser Div/Hvy. Cruiser
6 100,000 tons Lt. Cruiser Sqdn/Battlecruiser
7 200,000 tons Hvy Cruiser Div/Battleship
8 500,000 tons Hvy. Cruiser Sqdn/Battleship Div
9 1,000,000 tons Battleship Sqdn
10 2,000,000 tons Task Group (1xBatRon, 2xCruRon, plus escorts)
11 5,000,000 tons Task Force (2xBatRon, 4xCruRon, plus escorts)
12 10,000,000 tons Fleet (4xBatRon, 8xCruRon, plus escorts)</pre>[/QUOTE]DMs: +1 if System Navy, +2 if Subsector Navy, +3 if Imperial Navy

Note: A Division (Div) has 4 ships of the type stated; a Corvette Div has 4 corvettes. A Squadron (Sqdn) has 8 ships of the type stated; a Destroyer Squadron has 8 destroyers. Excess tonnage in a squadron is considered to be made up by ships of the same class but larger in size (not all battleships are exactly 200,000 tons). Cruiser Squadrons (CruRons) in Task Groups, Task Forces, and Fleets are a mix of Light Cruiser Squadrons and Heavy Cruiser Squadrons. Task Groups, Task Forces, and Fleets have enough escorts to make up any excess tonnage, usually at least one squadron of escorts (a mix of destroyer escorts, destroyers, and fleet escorts) for every Battleship Squadron (BatRon) or CruRon.

Combat Resolution

Step #1: Find the size of the engaged element of each force. The result is read as down so many levels from the size of the entire force on the Force Size Table. So a "Down 3" result for a 200,000 ton force (Hvy. Cruiser Div) would give a 20,000 ton engaged element (Destroyer Sqdn).
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">
Element Engaged Table (1d6+DMs)
Roll Result
0- Down 4
1 Down 3
2 Down 3
3 Down 2
4 Down 2
5 Down 1
6 Down 1
7+ Full</pre>[/QUOTE]DMs: -2 if Siege or Patrol mission, +1 if Battle mission, +2 if Strike mission

Step #2: Determine the type of encounter between the two engaged elements.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Encounter Type (1d6+DMs)
Roll Type
-3 Intruder Surprised
-2 Native Attacking
-1 Native Attacking
0 Native Attacking
1 Native Attacking
2 Meeting Engagement
3 Meeting Engagement
4 Meeting Engagement
5 Meeting Engagement
6 Intruder Attacking
7 Intruder Attacking
8 Intruder Attacking
9 Intruder Attacking
10+ Native Surprised</pre>[/QUOTE]DMs:</font>

• + Intruder Fleet Tactics skill minus Native Fleet Tactics skill (can be negative)</font>
• +1 if Intruder committed smaller element</font>
• -1 if Native committed smaller element</font>
• +1 if Intruder on Battle mission</font>
• +2 if Intruder on Strike mission</font>
• +1 if Native on Patrol mission</font>
• -1 if Intruder on Siege or Patrol mission</font>
• -1 if Native on Siege or Strike mission</font>

Step #3: Each engaged element rolls to determine what losses it inflicts on the other engaged element. An element that was surprised cannot inflict any losses.

Losses are measured as a percentage of the tonnage of the firing element that is lost by the element being fired on. So if a 10,000 ton element fires on a 200,000 ton element and gets a result of 50% losses, the 200,000 ton element loses 5,000 tons of ship (50% of 10,000 tons).
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Combat Results Table (1d6+DMs)
Roll Losses (% of element's total tonnage)
-2 None
-1 1%
0 5%
1 10%
2 20%
3 40%
4 50%
5 60%
6 80%
7 100%
8 200%
9+ 400%</pre>[/QUOTE]DMs: </font>

• + Firing element Tech Level minus target element Tech Level (can be negative)</font>
• + Firing element Force Efficiency minus target element Force Efficiency (can be negative)</font>
• +1 if firing element is attacking</font>
• +3 if firing element has surprise</font>

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The problem I have is how to take account of defensive systems/armour etc.?

I would just assume (to make matters easier) that these are more or less the same on each side and any differences are due to tech levels and accounted for that way.

But spinal meson guns make fleet combat qualitiatively different from fleet combat without them. Without effective spinal mounts large ships are worn down by repeated hits that eventually scrape all the weapons off the hull but the ship can usually still maneuver and jump, and to reduce a large ship quickly requires concentrating the fire of many vessels onto one target. After meson guns, the "one-shot-zot" comes to life. One meson gun-armed ship firing on one target equals one chance of a kill.

That's why I think the presence of spinal meson guns should increase the number of kills, especially of larger ships. But I still haven't figured out how to allow for that in an abstract system.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The problem I have is how to take account of defensive systems/armour etc.?

I would just assume (to make matters easier) that these are more or less the same on each side and any differences are due to tech levels and accounted for that way.

But spinal meson guns make fleet combat qualitiatively different from fleet combat without them. Without effective spinal mounts large ships are worn down by repeated hits that eventually scrape all the weapons off the hull but the ship can usually still maneuver and jump, and to reduce a large ship quickly requires concentrating the fire of many vessels onto one target. After meson guns, the "one-shot-zot" comes to life. One meson gun-armed ship firing on one target equals one chance of a kill.

That's why I think the presence of spinal meson guns should increase the number of kills, especially of larger ships. But I still haven't figured out how to allow for that in an abstract system.

 

[robject]

Perhaps you could set a divide between fleet elements which probably have spinal weapons versus those which don't? In other words, beyond a certain amount of tonnage there is likely a percentage of spinal weapons present; if this is so, there is a bonus to attacks by large tonnage forces *against* large tonnage forces which represents the raw killing power of spinal guns.

Fer instance, a group displacing 50,000 tons or more against another group displacing 50,000 tons or more.

That makes battles of high tonnage vs high tonnage a bit faster and deadlier than other battle lines. Does it make sense to do it that way?


And in the unlikely event that a fleet comes up against 200 corsairs, you'll know not to include that bonus.

 

[robject]

Perhaps you could set a divide between fleet elements which probably have spinal weapons versus those which don't? In other words, beyond a certain amount of tonnage there is likely a percentage of spinal weapons present; if this is so, there is a bonus to attacks by large tonnage forces *against* large tonnage forces which represents the raw killing power of spinal guns.

Fer instance, a group displacing 50,000 tons or more against another group displacing 50,000 tons or more.

That makes battles of high tonnage vs high tonnage a bit faster and deadlier than other battle lines. Does it make sense to do it that way?


And in the unlikely event that a fleet comes up against 200 corsairs, you'll know not to include that bonus.

 

[The Oz]

Perhaps it could be done as a +DM on the combat table for forces that are both more than a set tonnage, say 100,000 tons and TL12 or better?

Then there's the trouble of how to have the damage split up among the receiving ships, when necessary to know that. I'm still not sure how to do that.

 

[The Oz]

Perhaps it could be done as a +DM on the combat table for forces that are both more than a set tonnage, say 100,000 tons and TL12 or better?

Then there's the trouble of how to have the damage split up among the receiving ships, when necessary to know that. I'm still not sure how to do that.

 

[The Oz]

Hate to run from a good discussion just when it's getting going, but I'm off on holiday travel until the 30th.

"See" ya'll then.

 

[The Oz]

Hate to run from a good discussion just when it's getting going, but I'm off on holiday travel until the 30th.

"See" ya'll then.

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Oz:

One problem. MT PP's only work out right at 14KL/Dton...

Sadly, one of MT's little ironies... Since MT and TNE use the smae rates EXCEPT for fuel, TNE's FF&S is the better choice, as is 14KL/Td. (Which, it happens, is the CT rate, too.)

KL/Td and KL/Dton? what do those letters mean?

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Oz:

One problem. MT PP's only work out right at 14KL/Dton...

Sadly, one of MT's little ironies... Since MT and TNE use the smae rates EXCEPT for fuel, TNE's FF&S is the better choice, as is 14KL/Td. (Which, it happens, is the CT rate, too.)

KL/Td and KL/Dton? what do those letters mean?

 

[mike wightman]

Cymew,
those letters mean:
KL/Td - kilolitres per displacement ton
KL/Dton - the same.

 

[mike wightman]

Cymew,
those letters mean:
KL/Td - kilolitres per displacement ton
KL/Dton - the same.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Perhaps it could be done as a +DM on the combat table for forces that are both more than a set tonnage, say 100,000 tons and TL12 or better?

Then there's the trouble of how to have the damage split up among the receiving ships, when necessary to know that. I'm still not sure how to do that.

I'll think about it while you're gone

Enjoy your holiday Oz, and merry Christmas

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Perhaps it could be done as a +DM on the combat table for forces that are both more than a set tonnage, say 100,000 tons and TL12 or better?

Then there's the trouble of how to have the damage split up among the receiving ships, when necessary to know that. I'm still not sure how to do that.

I'll think about it while you're gone

Enjoy your holiday Oz, and merry Christmas

 

[Cymew]

Thanks Sigg!

I haven't seen the "Td" way of spelling displacement ton before. "Dton" looked more familiar.

 

[Cymew]

Thanks Sigg!

I haven't seen the "Td" way of spelling displacement ton before. "Dton" looked more familiar.

 

[robject]

Guys,

Working without any books for reference, I've started a Hybrid Vehicle Design System. My numbers are waay off, but I wanted to get some charts up to have something to look at. I'd appreciate it if you could post some constructive comments.

The page is here:

http://home.comcast.net/~downport/rules/HVDS.html

Thanks, and happy holidays.

Rob

 

[robject]

Guys,

Working without any books for reference, I've started a Hybrid Vehicle Design System. My numbers are waay off, but I wanted to get some charts up to have something to look at. I'd appreciate it if you could post some constructive comments.

The page is here:

http://home.comcast.net/~downport/rules/HVDS.html

Thanks, and happy holidays.

Rob

 

[mike wightman]

Emm, I can't read it, it's too big to fit on my monitor as a page???