"Maybe we'll fix that."

[whartung]

Maybe we'll fix that.

For the longest time, I've been advocating that if you're going to do a ship design system, the system needs to be built one on one with the combat system. And, ideally, some thought will be put in to balancing said combat system with the design system.

I've also advocated that if you're going to do a "simple" design system (LBB 2) it should be built as a simplification/composite of a more detailed system (LBB5 or FFS).

Then a "simple" designed ship can fight a "detailed" design ship, and the ships will be almost balanced.

Not a small task, of course.

But since you're talking about the possibility of fixing things, then some of the aspects that have been coming from the BR/BB threads need to be addressed. These instances of gaming the designs with the rules for silly effects.

For example, putting a single, sacrificial fighter "on the line" to hold off the enemy fleet for a turn while the rest flee to the reserve. Like building a Meson Gun ship that then bolts on a single turret of every other style of weapon for 1 factor to absorb weapon damage. Or even, perhaps, ensuring that big ships can fight small ships and prevail -- mostly.

So, I simply propose that if this part has not happened yet, perhaps others can come up with some of the more interesting rule abuses under the current systems, so's y'all can place an eyeball on fixing them.

 

[robject]

For the longest time, I've been advocating that if you're going to do a ship design system, the system needs to be built one on one with the combat system. And, ideally, some thought will be put in to balancing said combat system with the design system.

You're not alone in that. There are at least a few who are of a similar mind.

I've also advocated that if you're going to do a "simple" design system (LBB 2) it should be built as a simplification/composite of a more detailed system (LBB5 or FFS).

Then a "simple" designed ship can fight a "detailed" design ship, and the ships will be almost balanced.

I think you're right. More to the point, a Big ship shouldn't really be fundamentally different than a Small one. High Guard let us design small and large ships; if it had been abbreviated for LBB2 we'd not have the headache of two incompatible systems.

But since you're talking about the possibility of fixing things, then some of the aspects that have been coming from the BR/BB threads need to be addressed. These instances of gaming the designs with the rules for silly effects.

Traveller has complex requirements, and I'm not surprised that loopholes occur; in fact, starships are one of the most complicated pieces of Traveller, because they insinuate themselves into nearly every aspect of the game.

At the same time, I'm very interested in seeing a ship design and combat system which are faithful and consistent to the OTU. In a sense, it would also help support the OTU.

So, I simply propose that if this part has not happened yet, perhaps others can come up with some of the more interesting rule abuses under the current systems, so's y'all can place an eyeball on fixing them.

That is an excellent idea. I would love to draw up a Catalog Of Issues. They make good potential use cases.

 

[Dragoner]

First I would look at all written canon starship combat, the FFW, whatever one could find that seems relevant, like the passage about the differences between Battleships and Crusiers.

 

[shadowcat20]

Funny thing about HG and LBB2 I used them both.

LBB 2 was civilian construction guidelines. Hence no energy weapons, bay weapons, spinal mounts, batteries, screens, or purif plants. Civs got a one size fits all modular program to build their ships. It is easier to get parts, service, and replacement engines if they are all standard.

The Navy construction guidelines came in HG. A military ship was built to more exacting specs and designed with higher quality Maintenence programs then a civy ship would get. Parts would be more expensive and unique. Civies could get them for a price but it could be dicey getting caught with them. You might get permission to get purif plants or even energy weapons if your ship was rated as a Navy Aux ship on your home planet, but bays on a commercial ship?

If you start packing heavy military hardware I am sure the local cops would be looking at you twice and keeping tags on you.

Just my 2 credits,

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

Funny thing about HG and LBB2 I used them both.

LBB 2 was civilian construction guidelines. Hence no energy weapons, bay weapons, spinal mounts, batteries, screens, or purif plants. Civs got a one size fits all modular program to build their ships. It is easier to get parts, service, and replacement engines if they are all standard.

The Navy construction guidelines came in HG. A military ship was built to more exacting specs and designed with higher quality Maintenence programs then a civy ship would get. Parts would be more expensive and unique. Civies could get them for a price but it could be dicey getting caught with them. You might get permission to get purif plants or even energy weapons if your ship was rated as a Navy Aux ship on your home planet, but bays on a commercial ship?

If you start packing heavy military hardware I am sure the local cops would be looking at you twice and keeping tags on you.

Just my 2 credits,

I think I kind of concur. Although there may be a couple discrepancies in how the original three LBB handle tech levels in comparison to HG, etc that may have to be refined, overall I don't have any real problem with alternate rules between mainly commercial small craft and mainly military 'other' craft.

If you look at modern ocean going ships over the last half century or so,I think merchant or personal sized ships are typically built to different specs than warships. As I understand it this includes not only structural specs, but also machinery stuff, and other requirements.

Also, although there have been a few gas turbine or nuclear powered merchant ships in the real world, as I understand it these type plants are much more common for military ships. As such, in Traveller terms, I'm not that sure that I have all that much concerns that machinery is handled differently between the LBBs and HG either.

Regards

PF

 

[whartung]

I really don't know, but I imagine that modern commercial vessels (cargo notably) have gear of similar quality to military gear for those items that serve the same role. For example, their RADARs. No doubt military RADAR may have more power, or different bands (for higher resolution), and obviously a commercial container ship won't need air search radar, rather just ground/sea search radar.

But beyond the possible hostile electromagnetic environment that the military may encounter, a ship based radar is still in a pretty crappy environment (i.e. the ocean).

The commercial system may well be more modern than the military version. It might also have a shorter service life.

Now, considering starships, all of their gear has to handle the harshness of space. That alone will boost the base level of quality in terms of shielding and temperature, etc.

If there's any distinction between civilian and military hardware its probably how it responds to damage. But in Traveller, civilian ships, at least in some areas, are combat ships.

The military also has a crew advantage. A civilian ships is designed to operate with a few people as possible, and redundancy is not a real priority. The military is different. A civilian container ship will have a crew of, oh, 20 or so. A military cargo ship will have several hundred.

Civilian ships, specifically cargo, have a base need of reliability and low maintenance over raw speed. The diesel motors (the ENORMOUS diesel motors) are designed for long running. They'll push the ship along at, say, 20 knots (which is actually pretty good), but it will do it for likely the service life of the entire ship. Military ships may need more speed.

Simply, I think that the quality of civilian equipment in hostile environments like sea or space will be very similar to military gear. Military will have more specialized gear, of course, and systems designed to sustain combat in contrast to civilian ships which are probably more designed to stay afloat as long as it takes to get the crew off should something awful happen. That's what insurance is for.

 

[warwizard]

Ok so a super tanker has a service life of 10 years, and an Aircraft Carrier has one of 40 or 50 years, military aircraft are being flown by senior pilots that had not even been born when the aircraft was delivered from the factory. The Military is much more carefull about parts design, testing , configuration control and make lifetime buys of spares.
In Traveller Civilian ships have service lifes of 40 years, and military what, 150 or more?

 

[HiverLord]

For the longest time, I've been advocating that if you're going to do a ship design system, the system needs to be built one on one with the combat system. And, ideally, some thought will be put in to balancing said combat system with the design system.
I've also advocated that if you're going to do a "simple" design system (LBB 2) it should be built as a simplification/composite of a more detailed system (LBB5 or FFS).

Then a "simple" designed ship can fight a "detailed" design ship, and the ships will be almost balanced.

I'm 'finishing up' homebrew rules at the moment. I 'think' I finally have the design rules finished to my satisfaction. (Using mainly HG, with some CT/LBB, some GT and some other ideas. Still having fits with combining all three elements to get the sensors rules working to my liking, but it's mainly sensor rules and the GT stuff that's being difficult.

But this is exactly what I was thinking; built/modified the combat system first, having already had an idea of what design systems I was incorporating, then modified the design rules/added details as needed/desired.

Not a small task, of course.

You're not kidding about that...


When I restarted Trav last year, I was using GT, as my gamers were most familiar with Gurps. But using it doesn't 'feel' like Traveller, so I switched it over to CT. Now I'm just getting the ship rules down... again. (There are a lot of good and useful ideas and variants that I've seen come out of the Gurps camp, but some of them, while perhaps more realistic, or just fun, can be a bit unbalancing, I've found...)
I'm going over to a friend's to test out the new combat rules tonight, actually, so I'll see if they work correctly. <crosses fingers>

Then once things seem to be working, the 'real work' begins: creating a design sheet in Excel. I'm also working on a FileMaker Pro version for it, but I don't think that'll ever get done...
[And before anyone mentions programming: don't. I'm NOT a programmer. Don't have the knack for it...]

 

[Garyius2003]

There is a pistol shooting game group called IDPA. They were trying to avoid rule gaming that led to things like the larger IPSC group's pistols all becoming very odd caliber huge holo sighted monsters with so much ammo they are hard to hold up for long and that emit huge fireballs with every shot.

The new group tweaked a bunch of rules, and adopted a new one. "No failure to do right" as it related to a realistic defensive game.

It meant that local refs can toss guys for excessive rule gaming.

It has led to some gaming with local refs playing it to hometown some matches, but in general it has worked well.

Traveller version X.X needs this rule. MgT or T5 or T10 will always have some element of a 10 ton fighter holding 'the line' so that all 10 500KTon battleships withdraw and escape. This rule will knock that out, at the cost of a very few GMs abusing the rule.

 

[whartung]

Save that doesn't work for tournaments. The big issue is that for RPG's, "all the rules are optional" so to speak. And that's fine.

For the war games group, rule lawyering is a second career. But, as a consolation, it's "live by the rules, die by the rules". A person can only pull an obscure rule out on you and turn the tide once.

A favorite of mine is the Panzerfaust rule in Advanced Squad Leader. Simply, there's a quick sentence that all German squads have a inherent Panzerfaust on a roll of X. You can imagine how my American infantry learned that easily missed rule the hard way as they were hunkering down behind stone walls and in stone buildings.

I've also had friends lose, not just games, but the final match for the tournament, in Star Fleet Battles because his opponent did something and then pulled out a Star Letter (an official publication of the game at the time) with the rule change.

Also, in the game Illuminati, "cheating" is ok. It's actually sanctioned, just don't get caught or you have to put the money back.

Consider most of the debate here, on this specific topic. On the one hand you have Canon (i.e. what's "supposed to have happened") and the other, rules which dictate how and why things happen, and the contradiction between the two.

Of course, then there are the arguments between the war gamers/simulationists playing in RPGs and their Ref. These are always legion and nobody likes it when the Ref pulls out the "well the rules are just guidelines and whatever and what I say goes" line. Never a satisfying conclusion compared to the reasoned discussion over just exactly where a cardboard chit can be on a hex map at any specific time.

That IDPA rule you mention sounds basically, to me, to be a "Spirt of the game" rule. The premise of the competition is to not do what IPSC does. To keep it "realistic" and "practical", where IPSC dropped much of the "practical" from its top end games a long time ago.

But with IDPA, it sounds like it's mostly down to qualifying the firearm for competition, since the mechanics of the shoot are (I assume) reasonably straightforward and perhaps not gamed as much (I've not seen one), so at least the judgement is done early in the process, to the point that if a gun is disqualified, the competitor can always bring a back up and "still play" vs disqualifying an actual round of fire. Can't say though.

But either way, the key point is when the "spirit of the rules" rule can be invoked. Such as in the quiet prequel of ship approval. "Yea, NFW we're letting that in here" phase vs the heat of battle where the decision means a win or a loss during actual play.

So the question boils down to do you want a game with "real" rules, that can be shared and used across groups. i.e I can send my designs to your tournaments and accept them, or do you want a set that can be overruled by Referee fiat.

Arguably, that's what referees are for -- enforcing the rules, or making them up on the spot. RPGs are designed for creative expression, imagination and play.

Stricter games, however, are not so much. Adding a "whatever the ref says goes" as part of the official rule set seems pretty handwavy to me.

But consider. In TNE you have the ship combat rules in the TNE rule book. Then you have Brilliant Lances, and finally Battle Rider.

BL is basically the TNE rules with details on actual maneuver (since TNE abstracted that part of it away), and some additional detection and missile rules.

But BL is a "board game", TNE is an RPG. In TNE, the Ref can do what he wants with the ship combat rules -- whatever supports the narrative. In BL, I think folks want a more board game with a solid rules foundation, where rules CAN be "gamed".

So, I would be careful hardcoding a "spirit of the rules" qualifier in to the ruleset. Better to have a hard set of rules, for gamers, and look for some gross imbalances. Then the RPG refs can soften it up all they want. Always easy to do that in an RPG setting, but it's much harder to firm up a soft set of initial rules.

 

[Birdrock]

I think the acid test for updated rules is how so-called 'canonical' battles turn out using them.

 

[Matt123]

a 10 ton fighter holding 'the line' so that all 10 500KTon battleships withdraw and escape.

That 10 Ton fighter will be toasted by the first missile-9 battery to hit it, giving it 9 criticals. I'm picking that if 10 500Kton BB's are running away, there are enough missile-9's to ensure at least one hit.

After I have toasted that fighter, my entire fleet including those that have already fired, now gets to fire on the reserve. In the same turn. Before the 10 BB's leave. And without those BB's being able to return fire.

If my fleet can frighten off BB's, but not toast a single fighter, IMO thats a flaw in my fleet, not the rules.

I think you need to find a different example of the rules being broken, this one doesn't wash.

 

[far-trader]

That 10 Ton fighter will be toasted by the first missile-9 battery to hit it, giving it 9 criticals...

After I have toasted that fighter, my entire fleet including those that have already fired, now gets to fire on the reserve. In the same turn. Before the 10 BB's leave. And without those BB's being able to return fire...

I think you need to find a different example of the rules being broken, this one doesn't wash.

True. A better example might be one that has enough 10ton Fighters to sacrifice to hold the line for one turn to allow the fleet to escape by an emergency jump. Something on the order of 1 more than your auto-kill fire sources of fire.

Might be hard to find the pilots willing to do that, or not, history is full of noble sacrifices.

And that doesn't sound at all like a broken rule or against the spirit of the rules or game. It sounds like a desperate strategy, but a sound one nonetheless, if the "game" supports a "he who runs away lives to fight another day" scenario win/draw/point.

 

[McPerth]

That 10 Ton fighter will be toasted by the first missile-9 battery to hit it, giving it 9 criticals. I'm picking that if 10 500Kton BB's are running away, there are enough missile-9's to ensure at least one hit.

True, if unarmored....

Rules allow (perhaps another thing to fix) a 10 ton TL 15 fighter to be armored to level 15 for 1.6 tons, thus allowing some room for other things (or making it a 12-15 ton fighter could suffice to offset the lack of space), and those are quite difficult to root off (mostly when cupled with small size and hight agility) without resorting to the spinals (or meson bays).

 

[Matt123]

True, if unarmored....

Rules allow (perhaps another thing to fix) a 10 ton TL 15 fighter to be armored to level 15 for 1.6 tons, thus allowing some room for other things (or making it a 12-15 ton fighter could suffice to offset the lack of space), and those are quite difficult to root off (mostly when cupled with small size and hight agility) without resorting to the spinals (or meson bays).

still nothing to fix here, including the ability to armor fighters. I'm hoping this gets read a lot as the fighter shield concept is a really bad idea & finding this out in the middle of a game, will hurt...

Nukes on armour-15 require rolling 2, 3, 5 or 6 to get a weapon-1 damage result. Thats a 12 in 36 (33%) chance of successful hits causing a weapon-1. So we need say 9 nuke missile hits to strip that fighter of its typically 3 weapon factors.

Remember the fighter only needs to be stripped of weapons and I am ignoring the 9 criticals each missile-9 hit causes, less armor-15/2 = 2 criticals per missile-9 x 9 hits = 18 criticals, more than enough to toast the fighter.

But ignoring criticals and just stripping the weapons. To get 9 hits on an agility-6, computer-9 fighter - thats a much bigger fighter than a 10-ton fighter by the way, computer alone is 13 ton and needs 12EP to run it. But regardless the missile-9 will hit this fighter on a 10+ (6 in 36 chance or 16.7%). 9 hits needed / 16.7% = 54 missile-9 batteries are required to strip it of weapons.

Does a force that can drive off BB's have 54 missile-9's? I'd wager yes.

Now lets look at the 10 ton fighter, which carries a model-1 computer. To hit that with a missile-9 at TL15 is automatic... (2+ to hit +6 for fighter agility, -8 for computer difference = 0+ to hit)

So... 9x missile-9 bays, guarantees 1x combat ineffective 10 ton armor-15 fighter. Even better, every second 10 ton armored fighter will explode spectacularly as it is vaporized.

Either way I now get to fire on your 10 BB's as they attempt to flee, I get to use all my weapons, including those that have already been used on your fighter (and of course I will have used spinals on that fighter! I like the vaporized result...) and all the BB's can do is conduct defensive fire.

 

[HG_B]

In Traveller Civilian ships have service lifes of 40 years, and military what, 150 or more?

Hardly. The mortgage is just paid off then. At those TL's I put the life of a freighter (in maintained) in the range of 500 years.

 

[McPerth]

still nothing to fix here, including the ability to armor fighters. I'm hoping this gets read a lot as the fighter shield concept is a really bad idea & finding this out in the middle of a game, will hurt...

Nukes on armour-15 require rolling 2, 3, 5 or 6 to get a weapon-1 damage result. Thats a 12 in 36 (33%) chance of successful hits causing a weapon-1. So we need say 9 nuke missile hits to strip that fighter of its typically 3 weapon factors.

Remember the fighter only needs to be stripped of weapons and I am ignoring the 9 criticals each missile-9 hit causes, less armor-15/2 = 2 criticals per missile-9 x 9 hits = 18 criticals, more than enough to toast the fighter.

But ignoring criticals and just stripping the weapons. To get 9 hits on an agility-6, computer-9 fighter - thats a much bigger fighter than a 10-ton fighter by the way, computer alone is 13 ton and needs 12EP to run it. But regardless the missile-9 will hit this fighter on a 10+ (6 in 36 chance or 16.7%). 9 hits needed / 16.7% = 54 missile-9 batteries are required to strip it of weapons.

Does a force that can drive off BB's have 54 missile-9's? I'd wager yes.

Now lets look at the 10 ton fighter, which carries a model-1 computer. To hit that with a missile-9 at TL15 is automatic... (2+ to hit +6 for fighter agility, -8 for computer difference = 0+ to hit)

So... 9x missile-9 bays, guarantees 1x combat ineffective 10 ton armor-15 fighter. Even better, every second 10 ton armored fighter will explode spectacularly as it is vaporized.

Either way I now get to fire on your 10 BB's as they attempt to flee, I get to use all my weapons, including those that have already been used on your fighter (and of course I will have used spinals on that fighter! I like the vaporized result...) and all the BB's can do is conduct defensive fire.

Now let’s imagine instead of those 10 ton fighters you must face those heavy fighters:

HF-010690-F30000-20002-0 35 ton Crew 1 agility 6, MCr 175.82

To hit them with your batteries you need a 2+. No computer difference, -6 per agility, -2 per size (you forgot that modifier, I’m afraid, but it was irrelevant in your case due to computer difference), so 10+ (6 possibility in 36, so 1 in 6 will hit) (I’m assuming pilot/ship’s boat skill modifier is cancelled by ship tactics modifier, but it’s easier to have people with pilot/ship’s boat 3 than with ship tactics 3). Then you need 4 weapon hits to unarm this fighter. The only critical hits that mission kill them (in its role to screen a retreating force) are Ship Vaporized (roll 2), PP destroyed (roll 9) and crew-1 (roll 10), so 8 in 36 possibility, as you roll two times, probability to survive is about 60% . So probability to mission kill one with a salvo is about 6.66%. You need about 10-11 salvos to have a 50 % probability kill it (20 salvos have approximately 75% probability). Double that if they can choose range and choose short (-1 to missile fire).

And even meson spinals need a 4+ to hit them, -6 for agility, -2 for size, so 12+ (1 in 36, this time really toasting them for good).

So, a handful those fighters can hold quite a large fleet… (at high economic cost, true, as equipping them with computer 9 is expensive, but it may be well worth it if they allow your fleet to escape).

Now try it upgrading them to 200 ton gunboats (to avoid critical hits)…

They wouldn’t be too much more expensive, as most of the cost is computer, and (with 2 triple turrets) they’ll need 7 weapon hits to unarm them.

I’m also not so sure nukes are used as freely, as they are expensive and (IMHO) not in so ample supply.

That’s why I proposed the rule of automatic breakthrough if defending fleet is to small (see my post nº 229 in the thread ‘the compleat battleship’), as I guess those fighters would be mostly ignored (or at most screened) by the fleet, as, if they are thought to kill, they are no threat for a BB/BR fleet.

 

[rancke]

Hardly. The mortgage is just paid off then. At those TL's I put the life of a freighter (in maintained) in the range of 500 years.

According to a Q&A in TD, a 40 year old starship is worth 20-25% of its original cost. The only reasonable explanation for that is that at that time it is not in nearly as good as new. TNE has rules for wear value that goes up with time. All in all, a 40 year old civilian starship can't have all that many decades left in it. Good maintenance will help, of course, but presumably gets more expensive as time goes by.

Unless the service history of the Azhanti High Lightnings is atypical, military vessels begin being phased out after half a century, eventually being mothballed.

Once mothballed, they can survive for centuries, of course.


Hans

 

[Matt123]

Now let’s imagine instead of those 10 ton fighters you must face those heavy fighters:

HF-010690-F30000-20002-0 35 ton Crew 1 agility 6, MCr 175.82

I think you may have missed this part of my post.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]But ignoring criticals and just stripping the weapons. To get 9 hits on an agility-6, computer-9 fighter - thats a much bigger fighter than a 10-ton fighter by the way, computer alone is 13 ton and needs 12EP to run it. But regardless the missile-9 will hit this fighter on a 10+ (6 in 36 chance or 16.7%). 9 hits needed / 16.7% = 54 missile-9 batteries are required to strip it of weapons.[/FONT]

Slight edit, just noticed your heavy fighter has 7 weapon factors to reduce, neediing 21 damaging hits to get 7 weapon-1 results. 21/16.7% = 125 missile-9 batteries required.

Now try it upgrading them to 200 ton gunboats (to avoid critical hits)…

Ok, lets assume your 200ton gunboat has a mixed double turret holding a Fusion-5 and a sand-3 for 8 weapon factors plus a triple turret with laser-2, missile-2 and a second sand-3 adding another 5 factors (the second sand battery is destroyed in one hit) to reduce for a total of 13 weapon-1 hits needed. This 200ton gunship would need 36 damage rolls to get 13 weapon-1's, 36/28.8% gives 125 missile-9 batteries firing to strip this gunboat. Not much differant to your heavy fighter.

To put these 125 missile-9 batteries into context, the attacking fleet is chasing away a strong BB fleet. Each attacking 500kton Tigress carries 215 missile-9 batteries while the 200kton Plankwell & Kokirak carry 50 and 33 each. Plus of course escorts etc.

And of course you could field a squadron of sacrificial fighters/gunboats, but we would be getting well away from the original proposal that the rules are broken because a single fighter can stop a fleet of BB's. It would now be squadrons of very expensive and specialized fighters/gunboats can hold off a BB fleet.

PPS, second edit, your heavy fighter is a bit small & way to cheap. Its missing a MD or the PP stat. At 35 ton you will need a PP ((Computer 12EP + Laser 1EP)/.35 + 6 = PP44) taking up 15.4 ton and costing 46.2 MCr, add in the cost of the computer (13 ton & 140 MCr) we are already at 186 MCr and 28.4ton. Armour-15 occupies another 16% or 5.6ton and costs another 10MCr...

 

[rancke]

What happens if you make a buffered planetoid SDB with armor 20? It would spend a full 50% on armor, so it's probably impractical, but I just wondered.


Hans