How optional is Timing/Effect?

[Gallowglacht]

I'm not a big fan of it, agreeing with a lot of TBeards analysis (maybe not as energetically). But its optional right? I can ignore that aspect and try out a simplier CT type game and just roll for 8+ and roll separately for damage etc.

Or is it such an integral part of the design that the game won't run so great without it? I have reservations about MGT but there is a big part of me going "dude, new Traveller stuff!!".

 

[aramis]

It is tightly integrated into combat, both personal and space. Very tightly.

Effect is tied to damage; it could be replaced by 1d.

Timing can be replaced by just setting new initiative to skill level+1.

In short, no, it isn't optional, but it can be worked around.

The high-value result paradigm is disconcerting as an analyst, but it is quite fun in play for me and mine.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm not a big fan of it, agreeing with a lot of TBeards analysis (maybe not as energetically). But its optional right?

The playtest says that its optional, but, from what I've seen, it's not.

For example, weapon damage depends on it. Effect is multiplied to get damage. If someone opts out of the "optional" T/E mechanic, then how is damage decided upon?

I don't know.

There seem to be many other things in the system that rely upon the T/E mechanic that I'm scratching my head at why it's considered "optional". It's seems like a central part of the core task system, to me.

Maybe they'll take that "optional" part out in the final printing of the game, or maybe they'll find ways to make it optional since so many people don't like it.

 

[rust]

Over here fans have already developed an alternative combat system, which
is currently playtested. If it proves to be working, the firm that will translate
Mongoose Traveller will put it on its webpage as a semi-official alternative -
so many of the Traveller fans have doubts about the official combat system
that even the publishers have decided that an alternative is needed ...

 

[Gallowglacht]

Over here?

 

[rust]

Oops, sorry - I forgot that this forum does not show the location ...

"Over here" in this case means Germany, where a still small publisher named
"13 Mann Verlag" will publish a German edition of Mongoose Traveller soon
after the English version is published.

 

[Sturn]

I have a house page document, that I plan on finishing sometime after release of MongTrav. Some of it is my own, some of it taken from this and Mongoose's forum. If I get permission from the original posters, I plan on putting what I have together on a website so others have one place to get a list of suggested house rules.

 

[moout_diablo]

The playtest says that its optional, but, from what I've seen, it's not.

For example, weapon damage depends on it. Effect is multiplied to get damage. If someone opts out of the "optional" T/E mechanic, then how is damage decided upon?

I don't know.

There seem to be many other things in the system that rely upon the T/E mechanic that I'm scratching my head at why it's considered "optional". It's seems like a central part of the core task system, to me.

Maybe they'll take that "optional" part out in the final printing of the game, or maybe they'll find ways to make it optional since so many people don't like it.

I think you could get away with adding the same number of dice as the number of multipliers increase. For example an ACR would be 2D+8. That's still problematic for me because the 10 point minimum means you pretty much can't be 'nicked' by a round. An alternative could be taking any modifier greater than 3 and including an extra die of damage. the ACR would then be 4D and a plasma rifle damage of 5D.

I haven't taken the time to see if this would mess with armor ratings, though. I guess I'll test it when I get the book.

 

[Knightsky]

Effect is multiplied to get damage.

It wouldn't be exactly the same, but how about instead using (amount you made your roll by + 1) as your multiplier to determine damage?

 

[Klaus]

For example an ACR would be 2D+8. That's still problematic for me because the 10 point minimum means you pretty much can't be 'nicked' by a round.

I don't really see the problem. Bullet wounds should hurt, and be scary. Why the obsession with flesh wounds? Being shot is not the same as stubbing your toe.

With shrapnel there's more of a case for light hits, but they are already random rolls, as in 3D for Frag grenades.

Does anyone know the incidence of 'flesh wounds' to more serious bullet wounds in reality? Be interesting for a comparison.

 

[atpollard]

Does anyone know the incidence of 'flesh wounds' to more serious bullet wounds in reality? Be interesting for a comparison.

Police bullets miss 90% of the time in real life, so reality places shooting a handgun as a difficult task.

In battle statistics, 'wounded' greatly outnumbers 'killed' ... if that is any indication of severity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

Notice how the ratio has fallen from 50% killed / 50% wounded in the 18th Cent to 9% killed / 91% wounded in the 21st Cent.
Those .22 cal just dont get the job done like the old .70 cal could.

 

[rust]

Notice how the ratio has fallen from 50% killed / 50% wounded in the 18th Cent to 9% killed / 91% wounded in the 21st Cent.
Those .22 cal just dont get the job done like the old .70 cal could.

Not really, the differences are due to first aid and antibiotics. Until after 1945
far more of the wounded died of blood loss and wound infections than of the
wound itself.

 

[captainjack]

Police bullets miss 90% of the time in real life, so reality places shooting a handgun as a difficult task.

In battle statistics, 'wounded' greatly outnumbers 'killed' ... if that is any indication of severity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

Notice how the ratio has fallen from 50% killed / 50% wounded in the 18th Cent to 9% killed / 91% wounded in the 21st Cent.
Those .22 cal just dont get the job done like the old .70 cal could.

A good point, but also medical care, especially immediate medical care, is likely at least as much for the difference, especially after the initial hit. I think the 50/50 ratio was also not the instant ratio, but rather the 24hour or 1 week survival.

Especially between those dates. Even since WW2 the wia/kia has been dropping, and that likely has less to do with bullets than with speed of medical intervention.


But the point about the fired vs fired effectively seems a good point - I think the Vietnam era studies suggest a 10:1 miss/hit in combat - and the fire didn't fire ration may skew that even more, though not strictly relevent here.

 

[jericson]

A good point, but also medical care, especially immediate medical care, is likely at least as much for the difference, especially after the initial hit. I think the 50/50 ratio was also not the instant ratio, but rather the 24hour or 1 week survival.

Especially between those dates. Even since WW2 the wia/kia has been dropping, and that likely has less to do with bullets than with speed of medical intervention.


But the point about the fired vs fired effectively seems a good point - I think the Vietnam era studies suggest a 10:1 miss/hit in combat - and the fire didn't fire ration may skew that even more, though not strictly relevent here.

I thought WWII was around 1000:1, and with Viet Nam it had jumped up to around 10,000:1.

10:1 sounds really really unlikely.

 

[hunter]

I thought WWII was around 1000:1, and with Viet Nam it had jumped up to around 10,000:1.

10:1 sounds really really unlikely.

One of the big things with both Gulf Wars and the current conflicts is that KIAs are very rare mostly due to body armor and fast medical care. Most injuries are to the limbs now. Many fewer serious head or torso injuries which are typically the most deadly.

 

[Sturn]

Police bullets miss 90% of the time in real life, so reality places shooting a handgun as a difficult task.

I've always liked the idea of a "coolness unde fire" skill, since skill is only a small part of your chance to hit a target. I've got 16 years law enforcement, field training officer, SRT team leader, military background, and I think accuracy depends much more on remaining calm then your "handgun" skill. How you do at the range isn't always how you will do when the target is shooting back. When things go bad, I would much rather have a veteran that is a mediocre shot beside me then a rookie target ace that is shaking and wild-eyed.

2300 AD and T-2000 had a coolness trait, but it was applied only to initiative.

Notice how the ratio has fallen from 50% killed / 50% wounded in the 18th Cent to 9% killed / 91% wounded in the 21st Cent.
Those .22 cal just dont get the job done like the old .70 cal could.

I think it has much more to do with medical science and body armor. I also don't know of any army or para-military organization, such as police, using a .22 cal weapon, that's for hunting small game and target practice. If you meant the .223 round (5.56mm), it's a completely different story, since it DOES do quite a bit of tissue damage, and it's penetration is on a completely different scale then large slow-moving muzzle loader balls.

 

[Supplement Four]

I think accuracy depends much more on remaining calm then your "handgun" skill.

But what if "handgun" skill includes the increased ability to remain calm under fire? Say...Handgun-1 is experience in learning how to breathe, aim, hold the weapon, and squeeze the trigger correctly. Handgun-2 includes increased accuracy and remaining calm under fire. Handgun-3 ... etc.

It might include that. (Then, again, it might not. I can see both sides of that argument. Especially in Classic Traveller, where skills are very broad in their scope.)

 

[Sturn]

But what if "handgun" skill includes the increased ability to remain calm under fire? Say...Handgun-1 is experience in learning how to breathe, aim, hold the weapon, and squeeze the trigger correctly. Handgun-2 includes increased accuracy and remaining calm under fire. Handgun-3 ... etc.

But then you run out of ammo for your handgun. You pick up someone's Rifle. You have Rifle-0 with it. Suddenly you lost your calmness under fire and begin to shake and shoot without aiming carefully because your weapon grew a stock and longer barrel?

I'm not saying I'm going to change any rules in any version of Traveller I play to reflect coolness under fire. That's way too deep for a game. Just something to think about.

 

[moout_diablo]

I don't really see the problem. Bullet wounds should hurt, and be scary. Why the obsession with flesh wounds? Being shot is not the same as stubbing your toe.

With shrapnel there's more of a case for light hits, but they are already random rolls, as in 3D for Frag grenades.

Does anyone know the incidence of 'flesh wounds' to more serious bullet wounds in reality? Be interesting for a comparison.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be the potential for HIGH damage, just that the range should include low damage as well. I don't see how having the chance to get a flesh wound (remember the shooter's skill raises the base damage) negates the danger of combat.

I've seen actual flesh wounds. They're good for a point or two of damage. The fact is not every gunshot wound is life-threatening. A friend was shot in a hunting accident (410 shotgun does not have good penetration) and limped to the car, drove to a hospital, and was home before the sun set. A retired cop friend of mine has two scars from a .32 that he walked away from.

Some weapons like the .410 are crap for anything bigger than birds. Some people are bad shots or unlucky. Hell, even in Iraq, the incidence of injury to death was something like 7:1. In WWII is was about 1.5 or 2:1 so technology and availability of facilities makes a huge difference.


Which begs the question. If combat for our own troops leads to death one time of 8, is a range of damage that includes low numbers actually more representative of reality than the desire to make combat more lethal?

 

[moout_diablo]

One of the big things with both Gulf Wars and the current conflicts is that KIAs are very rare mostly due to body armor and fast medical care. Most injuries are to the limbs now. Many fewer serious head or torso injuries which are typically the most deadly.

Our enemies in WWII also had better access to heavy support weapons as well. You can survive an almost miss from a .30 much better than a 1' miss by a German 88.