Range Band Striker?

[SgtHulka]

Has anyone tried this? That is, Striker in two dimensions like Book 1 combat, without miniatures or a map.

I'm gearing up to try a solitaire Mercenary campaign, and thought this might be an interesting compromise between Striker proper and Book 4's abstract combat resolution system.

I'm not talking about using Book 1 combat with Striker wounding rules...I'm talking about full-on Striker with morale, spotting, etc.

 

[Ranger]

I played around with using a hex map system instead of just range bands (something on the order of 100 or 200 meter hexes as I recall). I think it would work in theory, but never have play-tested it. You really need to put a manuever element into the situation (something that pure range bands miss).

 

[tbeard1999]

Good luck to you. While Striker has the guts of a nice Traveller combat system, I think that it's a pretty serious bust as a wargame. Way too much time is spent doing nothing except passing orders and the combat system is poorly fitted to the 4 man fireteam scale. The use of 2d6 rolls precludes parallel processing, so (for instance), you have to make 4 consecutive 2d6 rolls to determine if a fireteam hits anything. With typical automatic small arms, you'll then roll around 5-6 consecutive 2d6 rolls to determine the results.

The probabalistic spotting system (you roll to see if you spot something) is also abysmal and essentially creates a separate combat-like system with different rules. Unfortunately, that system has plagued Frank Chadwick's rules until he finally abandoned it with Command Decision III.

Striker was state of the art in 1981, but it has aged very poorly in many respects.

Unfortunately, Striker II is far worse...

For my military campaigns, I've adapted Ogre/GEV and even Squad Leader.

If I were bound and determined to use Striker, I'd do some major reconstructive surgery. I'd start by using d10s instead of 2d6 rolls. (I like d10s because they don't roll as far as d20s and are smaller). Then, you can roll all of a fireteams shots together. I'd ditch the command and control system and assume that the time scale is long enough for most troops to get their orders. If I absolutely *had* to have C&C rules, I'd use some kind of activation roll system. I'd replace the spotting system with a deterministic system -- you see something when you get within a certain range (see Command Decision III or my own A Fistful of TOWs rules for examples of how that works).

Good luck.

--Ty

 

[Supplement Four]

I think it's an interesting idea. I'd be interesting to see what you come up with. But, to me, it just seems that Range Bands and Striker are incompatible.

 

[SgtHulka]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Way too much time is spent doing nothing except passing orders...

That's exactly why I was considering taking away the miniatures and table. So much time is spent on set up, and then most of the game is just sitting around passing orders and trying to prevent your figures from routing.

Your other comments are well-taken. But if I were to pull it apart completely I'd just switch to Stargrunt II and convert. There's just so much great stuff in the campaign/integrate with Traveller chapter of Striker it's extremely tempting to try and use it as written.

Is your Fistful of TOWs based on the rules with no name/fistful of dice/street violence system or something totally different?

 

[Ranger]

If I absolutely *had* to have C&C rules, I'd use some kind of activation roll system.

Unfortunately with Striker, that is what the game was all about. It was an effort to allow gamers to "roleplay" the position of platoon leader or company commander.

Basically, a tactial unit can do 5 things:

March (move non-tactially)

Move tactially

Engage by fire

Assualt (move into close combat)

Fall back

And then you have to consolidate and re-organize after any serious contact (which I guess is technically a 6th thing or you could call it a form of Rallying).

Unfortunately the Striker command rules were designed to show people how frustriating it is to try and keep control of a combat situation and get people to do what you want under fire as a counter the "all powerful" commander of the standard wargaming rules of the time.

If you're set on using Striker, I'd go with command chits and an activation roll to change them rather than the standard C&C rules in Striker. Basically, changing a units orders becomes a task roll for the leader (keeps the Traveller feel to the game).

As to abstracting it, if you have any old Squad Leader boards floating around, they would be perfect (I think that was the idea I finally settled on). 40m hexes and lots of terrain for moving around in.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by SgtHulka:
That's exactly why I was considering taking away the miniatures and table. So much time is spent on set up, and then most of the game is just sitting around passing orders and trying to prevent your figures from routing.

Your idea of removing the miniatures would speed things up. However, I think that you're still gonna find the game system to be too time consuming. Unfortunately, there's nothing that I've found that will really give you what you need. One day, I intend to create a game at Striker's scale using FFT as a base, but I haven't done it yet.

Your other comments are well-taken. But if I were to pull it apart completely I'd just switch to Stargrunt II and convert. There's just so much great stuff in the campaign/integrate with Traveller chapter of Striker it's extremely tempting to try and use it as written.

I'm not a big fan of Stargrunt II, though I know John Tuffley and he's a class act. I really liked Full Thrust and his miniatures are the best hard military sci-fi miniatures I've seen. That said, I think that Stargrunt is a better wargame than Striker.

The major problems with Striker aren't really that difficult to fix. Here's a quick and dirty set of suggestions:

Use a single d10 roll for all 2d6 rolls. I'd keep all the modifiers the same; they work out approximately right.

7+ is a hit at effective range, 9+ is a hit at long range and 11+ a hit at extreme range. Note that unless there are positive to hit modifiers (and there almost always are), a figure will automatically miss at extreme range.

A penetration roll of 2+ is a light wound; 7+ is a serious wound and 11+ is dead. Again, positive modifiers (there almost always are) are required to get a "Dead" result.

I'd strip the command and control and morale system out and go with a version of my FFT system -- stands make morale ("quality") checks and if they fail, they are removed. No routing or any of that crap. They are out of the current fight and that's all there is to it. Use cohesion rules to simulate organization and don't worry about leaders (FFT assumes that the platoon and company leaders are wherever they need to be).

Here's a link to my FFT blog. It has pointers to where you can download a free version of FFT.

http://fftows.blogspot.com/

Is your Fistful of TOWs based on the rules with no name/fistful of dice/street violence system or something totally different?

FFT predates those rules considerably and is a completely different system. It's a modern miniature wargame, though there has been an unofficial set of WWII rules ("Where Panzers Dare").

FFT3 will be out this summer. It covers armored combat from 1910 through 2015. FFT:2030 will cover armored combat during the 21st century. Railgun:2100 covers sci-fi armored combat and is close to Striker in scale, though I didn't include a design system. RG:2100 will be completely revised to conform to the FFT3 system when it's out. You can get RG:2100 from the FFT email list.

 

[tbeard1999]

Originally posted by Ranger:
As to abstracting it, if you have any old Squad Leader boards floating around, they would be perfect (I think that was the idea I finally settled on). 40m hexes and lots of terrain for moving around in.

Yes, that's a good suggestion. Over the years, my players have fought dozens of battles on the Squad Leader boards. The Squad leader counters are also useful for marking non-player forces.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by tbeard1999:
Your idea of removing the miniatures would speed things up. However, I think that you're still gonna find the game system to be too time consuming.

I'm really interested to see something that would take the miniatures aspect out of Striker, using Range Bands. Like tbeard, though (and as I mention above), I really can't see how it could be done.

I'm ready to be dazzeled, though.

I'm hoping you can do it.

What I think of is running Book 2 Space Combat with Starter Traveller Range Bands. Things can get quite sticky for the GM when more than one enemy ship appears.

I usually use columns--one column per ship--when running a space combat this way.

But...if the multiple enemy ships are not all on the same side, and they start shooting at each other, you're just about forced to play the scenario out on a hex map, scrapping the Range Bands.

For example, if the players' ship fights just one enemy vessel, or it fights two or more enemies all on the same side, I can manage the combat by using columns for each enemy ship.

But, if you get, say, the player's ship, an pirate vessel, and an Imperial Navy escort--with all three ships firing at each other--this is a hard thing to keep track of using just range bands.

I'm thinking Striker would be more akin to this last idea--multiple Striker units, all with different ranges to the enemy. If a third force is involved in the Striker combat, then it gets exponentially harder to manage with just Range Bands.

 

[DonM]

You can use AHL combat resolution with Traveller range bands. My gaming group HATES going to a board for anything, so the range band system is where it's at for us; however, the simplistic resolution of CT combat is annoying, so I've been tinkering with AHL/Striker combat resolution using the range band movement mechanics.

And remember to use the entire Starter Traveller space combat mechanics (don't forget the Pulse Laser changes).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by DonM:
You can use AHL combat resolution with Traveller range bands.

You can? You've got,say, six crewmembers on your Far Trader when it gets boarded. Each of them are in a fight. Two on the bridge. Two in the cargo hold. One in engineering. And one in the corridor outside his stateroom.

There are nine Vargr corsair boarders.

How do you keep track of that with range bands?

 

[DonM]

I'd probably use four individual range bands. That's the kind of annoying person I am.

However, I'll admit: I'm considering switching to Snapshot movement + AHL combat, and just keeping it on a reduced page for my own use.

The whole AP=Endurance+Dexterity thing really grabs me. But I like AHL combat resolution.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by DonM:
However, I'll admit: I'm considering switching to Snapshot movement + AHL combat, and just keeping it on a reduced page for my own use.

Hmmm...

You've just made me think of something...(Lightbulb!).

I've done this before, too...but, it's been a while, back in the D&D days.

I think I have an answer to the Striker + Range Band problem.

It'll work for multiple ships, too.

Take a sheet of graph paper instead of lined notebook paper for your Range Bands. Each square represents one Range Band.

Since the graph paper Bands can be two-dimensional, you can keep track of range in two directions.

You're basically plotting movement on a grid.

But, it's work. The GM keeps his master graph with relative locations of whatever's being tracked (starships, firefight combatants, Striker squads...whatever).

Then, the GM just describes what the unit "sees".

God, I haven't run anything like this in a long time. I can't remember why I abandon it so long ago. Somebody'd have to play with it a time or two to see if it's a practical idea.

But, I think, in theroy, it'd work.

-S4

 

[Ranger]

S4,

Well, if you are going to plot movment on a grid, why not do it on a hext graph rather than a line gragh? Especially since squares distort the moment on the diagonals (unless you want to start doing measurments rather than just using basic movment numbers).

BTW, that was my middle step between abtract and hexs.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ranger:
Well, if you are going to plot movment on a grid, why not do it on a hext graph rather than a line gragh?

Two reasons: (1) Hex paper, you can't pick up at your local Office Depot. You need a game store or an Artists Supply store for something like that. (2) You don't need to.

All the graph paper will do is keep track of range bands and general distance (range bands) between combatants. A GM can place a pencil dot in a square, and move it, numbering the moves 1-2-3-4-etc...all he's got to do is know approx where the enemy is. Then, he describes it to his players, "You peek around the log, and you don't see anything...what do you want to do." He says, as he's sneaking his bad guys concealed up the ravine.

Diagonals on the square grid don't matter when you're keeping track of range with Range Bands.

 

[Ranger]

Well, if it is access to hexgraphs, there are a few shareware programs that will do it for you:

http://grognard.com/aides.html#windows

Plus there are some other out there too (the one I have will actually do pretty much any graph, but I have no clue where I got it from at this point).

And if you can use a laptop during gaming, there is always cyberboard to keep track of things. I've never done that myself for resolving a tactical battle in Traveller, but I don't see why you couldn't.

The situation you describe sounds more like individual combat rather than a force on force situation where you have several fire teams or squads deployed across an area. My understanding was that was the issue here, how to resolve combat where the PCs are team, squad, or platoon level leaders in larger fights.

Using hexgraphs lets you to keep track of that more accurately in my experience. It also lets you keep track of when one unit might start to mask another unit's fire (by moving in front of it). If you are going to resolve those types of tactical situations in a Merc campaign, then those are the kind of issues that become important.

If it is a small number of units (two or three squads per side), then the GM can track all of it on a hexgraph without ever having to set up a board just like you suggested. But the hexgraph makes it a lot easier to track those tactical details that become important (such as terrain, flanking moves, ect.). You can still do the combat resolution abstractly, using range bands, rather than full-blown tabletop gaming.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ranger:
The situation you describe sounds more like individual combat rather than a force on force situation where you have several fire teams or squads deployed across an area. My understanding was that was the issue here, how to resolve combat where the PCs are team, squad, or platoon level leaders in larger fights.

Like I said, one would have to test it to see if its playable.

But, I'm thinking have having fire teams, or whatever the unit size for your Striker engagement, kept track of just like you would a single PC.

Of course....just putting counters on hex paper for your players to see is probably a better idea, especially if its a large engagement--leaving Striker as a wargame.

 

[Ranger]

Well, it is just that unit orientation and masking of fire along with things like smoke and other military factors make the combat a lot more complex than a simple group on group enocounter.

I can see where the graph paper idea works great for range band ship combat with just a couple of ships a side.

Small unit infantry combat is a different animal though. The reason I gave up on range band/graph paper and went to hexes is that when you start using vehicles, it just completely get unworkable. Vehicles move much faster, and with Striker, what direction you are shooting from really makes a huge difference in armor values. So, even if you just have a couple of APCs supporting an infantry section, the graph paper/range band thing gets problematic. You need a way of figuring out what direction the vehicle is facing to figure out if it is a front, flank, or rear shot on the armor.

I think that is why they gave up on specific armor values and went to generic AVs in MT. As long as you've got seperate armor ratings for front, flank, and rear (which is absolutely realistic) you have to have a way to track that in game.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ranger:
Small unit infantry combat is a different animal though. The reason I gave up on range band/graph paper and went to hexes is that when you start using vehicles, it just completely get unworkable. Vehicles move much faster, and with Striker, what direction you are shooting from really makes a huge difference in armor values. So, even if you just have a couple of APCs supporting an infantry section, the graph paper/range band thing gets problematic. You need a way of figuring out what direction the vehicle is facing to figure out if it is a front, flank, or rear shot on the armor.

I agree. I didn't think Range Bands and Striker would mix. You're making my point for me.

 

[Ranger]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ranger:
Small unit infantry combat is a different animal though. The reason I gave up on range band/graph paper and went to hexes is that when you start using vehicles, it just completely get unworkable. Vehicles move much faster, and with Striker, what direction you are shooting from really makes a huge difference in armor values. So, even if you just have a couple of APCs supporting an infantry section, the graph paper/range band thing gets problematic. You need a way of figuring out what direction the vehicle is facing to figure out if it is a front, flank, or rear shot on the armor.

I agree. I didn't think Range Bands and Striker would mix. You're making my point for me. </font>[/QUOTE]You're correct. I really wasn't being clear. I do think you can abstract Striker using a hex system, but that is a lot more detailed than simple range bands. If you make the hexes big enough, they effectively become range bands. But I dumped that idea because I ended up with two different scales; 200 meter hexes for vehicles and 40 meter hexes for infantry. At that point I just figured use the 40m scale and squad leader boards.