Sensorlopes & Book 2 space combat

[mike wightman]

I reduce the timescale for ship combat IMTU in order to make the combat a bit more exciting - imagine watching BSG or B5 with 10 minutes between weapon salvos

I use a longer scale for the sensor and maneuver bit, but once combat is joined then 1 minute turns are much better (sometimes the descriptions of the action give the impression that only a few seconds are passing - this is a good thing, it adds to the excitement). Weapon ranges are also much reduced to compensate.

Boredom followed by extreme violence...

 

[mike wightman]

I reduce the timescale for ship combat IMTU in order to make the combat a bit more exciting - imagine watching BSG or B5 with 10 minutes between weapon salvos

I use a longer scale for the sensor and maneuver bit, but once combat is joined then 1 minute turns are much better (sometimes the descriptions of the action give the impression that only a few seconds are passing - this is a good thing, it adds to the excitement). Weapon ranges are also much reduced to compensate.

Boredom followed by extreme violence...

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
Did some more thinking on this, what if instead of multiple attacks, you get a bonus to hit AND damage? As I remember, a 12 on the damage table was a critical hit, so a DM to damage would give you a much better chance for a critical hit which could be a simple way to represent multiple attacks at the shorter ranges.

Might not be a bad idea. I tossed the idea of a damage bonus around when typing up my reply last night. Two ways to do it that I saw:

First the bonus on the damage allocation table like you suggest. The problem there is the table isn't really weighted properly for damage bonuses. A pretty minor problem really, and easy to ignore. My thinking was a +1 on the damage roll for short range and +3 for close range. Same bonus on the critical table if it comes up.

Second idea was extra damage rolls. Problem there was how much and how to synch with the two damage rolls for pulse vs one for beam. Just double and triple the rolls for short and close range respectively? And of course we run into the multiple rolls issue again when it could be done with just 1 roll.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
Did some more thinking on this, what if instead of multiple attacks, you get a bonus to hit AND damage? As I remember, a 12 on the damage table was a critical hit, so a DM to damage would give you a much better chance for a critical hit which could be a simple way to represent multiple attacks at the shorter ranges.

Might not be a bad idea. I tossed the idea of a damage bonus around when typing up my reply last night. Two ways to do it that I saw:

First the bonus on the damage allocation table like you suggest. The problem there is the table isn't really weighted properly for damage bonuses. A pretty minor problem really, and easy to ignore. My thinking was a +1 on the damage roll for short range and +3 for close range. Same bonus on the critical table if it comes up.

Second idea was extra damage rolls. Problem there was how much and how to synch with the two damage rolls for pulse vs one for beam. Just double and triple the rolls for short and close range respectively? And of course we run into the multiple rolls issue again when it could be done with just 1 roll.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We wouldn't be complicating CT much, though, with a rule like this -- mainly because this rule would only take effect when two ships are within the same hex (within 10,000 km).

So, it would only occur in Plankover's "playing possum" scenario above, or when a ship is on the ground (as in your thoughts).

You will hardly ever have two ships in the same hex in starship combat unless they are docking. So, it should (hardly) ever become an issue.

All the more reason I think to keep it simple, and have it a simple table that gets used all the time. If it's a special rule for a rare case no one will know it and when it comes up there'll be much book/note scouring to apply a different rule. Maybe it's just me

If it were me I'd stick to the single attack roll but add modifiers for range, similar to the personal combat tables by range.

I thought about doing this as well, as I mentioned in a previous post. But, say a ship has only one pulse laser aboard. Shouldn't it be able to blow the heck out of a near target as well? One attack, even with a DM, will be the same as if the ship were 100,000 km away (except it will probably hit because of the DM).[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]It's an abstraction for sure. The higher probability (almost certainty close range) represents the multiple hits. And not every hit scores for serious damage. Glancing shots, through shots into areas already destroyed, and such. So there's more hot laser slicing into the ship but it doesn't always do much more damage.

Let's say the PC ship has it's M-Drive knocked out. But, the single pulse laser is fine. The enemy matches vectors to dock.

The PC ship gets only one attack as the enemy ship matches vectors into the same hex before the enemy extends it's unbilical and starts boarding procedures?

Does that seem right?

Or, should the PC ship get several more attacks at the enemy as it attempts to dock?

I'm leaning towards the latter, but a good argument might slap me back into the "official-one-attack" way of thinking.

Thoughts?

A ship dead in space with a single functional weapon would be lucky to get off one shot If I'm closing on a lame bird I'm not going to be coming in right at the turret that's tracking me

If I have the choice I'll put your own hull between me and that lone functional pulse laser

Now then, my own question which hit me as soon as I started reading and didn't see addressed, how does this affect missiles?

Haven't got there yet. We're just brainstorming in this thread. It's a work in progress.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Granted, just wanted to bring it up, add it to the discussion. It should all be realted and consistant.

I've always felt the slow rate of fire was to either allow the launcher to cool and clear before the next one was sent off or because the gunner was doing active guidance all the way to target.

If we're going to say that, then we can also say that lasers require a certain amount of time to recycle and recharge - which is why they can only be fired once in 15 minutes... [/QB][/QUOTE]

Fair point, if we take my cool and clear argument for missile rof. Maybe that's a good argument for terminal guidance by the gunner being the reason a single volley is fired at a time instead.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by WJP:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We wouldn't be complicating CT much, though, with a rule like this -- mainly because this rule would only take effect when two ships are within the same hex (within 10,000 km).

So, it would only occur in Plankover's "playing possum" scenario above, or when a ship is on the ground (as in your thoughts).

You will hardly ever have two ships in the same hex in starship combat unless they are docking. So, it should (hardly) ever become an issue.

All the more reason I think to keep it simple, and have it a simple table that gets used all the time. If it's a special rule for a rare case no one will know it and when it comes up there'll be much book/note scouring to apply a different rule. Maybe it's just me

If it were me I'd stick to the single attack roll but add modifiers for range, similar to the personal combat tables by range.

I thought about doing this as well, as I mentioned in a previous post. But, say a ship has only one pulse laser aboard. Shouldn't it be able to blow the heck out of a near target as well? One attack, even with a DM, will be the same as if the ship were 100,000 km away (except it will probably hit because of the DM).[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]It's an abstraction for sure. The higher probability (almost certainty close range) represents the multiple hits. And not every hit scores for serious damage. Glancing shots, through shots into areas already destroyed, and such. So there's more hot laser slicing into the ship but it doesn't always do much more damage.

Let's say the PC ship has it's M-Drive knocked out. But, the single pulse laser is fine. The enemy matches vectors to dock.

The PC ship gets only one attack as the enemy ship matches vectors into the same hex before the enemy extends it's unbilical and starts boarding procedures?

Does that seem right?

Or, should the PC ship get several more attacks at the enemy as it attempts to dock?

I'm leaning towards the latter, but a good argument might slap me back into the "official-one-attack" way of thinking.

Thoughts?

A ship dead in space with a single functional weapon would be lucky to get off one shot If I'm closing on a lame bird I'm not going to be coming in right at the turret that's tracking me

If I have the choice I'll put your own hull between me and that lone functional pulse laser

Now then, my own question which hit me as soon as I started reading and didn't see addressed, how does this affect missiles?

Haven't got there yet. We're just brainstorming in this thread. It's a work in progress.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Granted, just wanted to bring it up, add it to the discussion. It should all be realted and consistant.

I've always felt the slow rate of fire was to either allow the launcher to cool and clear before the next one was sent off or because the gunner was doing active guidance all the way to target.

If we're going to say that, then we can also say that lasers require a certain amount of time to recycle and recharge - which is why they can only be fired once in 15 minutes... [/QB][/QUOTE]

Fair point, if we take my cool and clear argument for missile rof. Maybe that's a good argument for terminal guidance by the gunner being the reason a single volley is fired at a time instead.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I reduce the timescale for ship combat IMTU in order to make the combat a bit more exciting - imagine watching BSG or B5 with 10 minutes between weapon salvos

Although I like the "submarine warfare", cat-n-mouse system of Book 2, I did play around with this a few years ago.

I based it on range. As a two vessels got closer to each other, the length of the game round got shorter.

If one enemy vessel was near, and another was far away, we defaulted to the round of the near vessel.

You ended up with scenarios like this: PC's ship fires at close enemy ship every round' PC's ship can fire at far enemy ship once ever five rounds.

It worked pretty well.

Maybe I should look into doing something like this gain.

Something simple would say: 10 second rounds if in the same hex; 100 second rounds with target 1-10 hexes away; 1000 second rounds with target 11-20 hexes away; 10,000 second rounds with target 21-30 hexes away ... etc.

Or something like that. You get the idea.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I reduce the timescale for ship combat IMTU in order to make the combat a bit more exciting - imagine watching BSG or B5 with 10 minutes between weapon salvos

Although I like the "submarine warfare", cat-n-mouse system of Book 2, I did play around with this a few years ago.

I based it on range. As a two vessels got closer to each other, the length of the game round got shorter.

If one enemy vessel was near, and another was far away, we defaulted to the round of the near vessel.

You ended up with scenarios like this: PC's ship fires at close enemy ship every round' PC's ship can fire at far enemy ship once ever five rounds.

It worked pretty well.

Maybe I should look into doing something like this gain.

Something simple would say: 10 second rounds if in the same hex; 100 second rounds with target 1-10 hexes away; 1000 second rounds with target 11-20 hexes away; 10,000 second rounds with target 21-30 hexes away ... etc.

Or something like that. You get the idea.

 

[cheepicus]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
The dodging stuff is represented in the CT Combat system by the AutoEvade and ManeuverEvade programs providing negative DMs to hit.

Yes, but this implies a 5k dton M1 ship with a decent computer can dodge better than an M6 fighter, which doesn't really please me. Mostly I'm just looking for a way for something small and fast to survive the short-range death tangle

But probably I don't have a good grasp on how it would play out.

 

[cheepicus]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
The dodging stuff is represented in the CT Combat system by the AutoEvade and ManeuverEvade programs providing negative DMs to hit.

Yes, but this implies a 5k dton M1 ship with a decent computer can dodge better than an M6 fighter, which doesn't really please me. Mostly I'm just looking for a way for something small and fast to survive the short-range death tangle

But probably I don't have a good grasp on how it would play out.

 

[jrients]

What about allowing g's of maneuver to be spent on dodging in addition to using computer programs? That ramps up total negative DMs, but if you use the proposed multiple shots at close range you can still have fast and furious knife-fights.

 

[jrients]

What about allowing g's of maneuver to be spent on dodging in addition to using computer programs? That ramps up total negative DMs, but if you use the proposed multiple shots at close range you can still have fast and furious knife-fights.

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by WJP:

Originally posted by Cymew:
BTW, now that you have written this stuff about ranges I get a bit confused about that lined notebook system for starship movement and combat

Do you have a short/medium/long/v.long range band system, where every band have a different amount of "hexes" - notebook lines? Or are each band 10 000 km long?

Sounds like it's a terminology thing.

Range Bands are 10,000 km long. If you're using lined notebook paper, each line represents 10,000 km. If you're using a hex board or square grid to plot movement, each hex or square is 10,000 km wide.


A terminology thing then. In MT there are "range bands" that "contain" hexes, so to speak. I hadn't gotten the impression the CT range band system used them. Terminology, right.

The only thing I wish for now is that you make up a system for grabbing MT ship data and using this package, and you sensor rules, in a MT session without having to recalulate stuff or dig out CT ship data.

Having just one system to build all sizes of craft is a great idea, and I just wished all this good stuff for CT was usable with it "out of the box".

Oooo ... sorry, but I'm afraid I'm a CT kinda guy. If you're using MT space combat, you'll have to convert.

It shouldn't be too hard, though. CT an MT are very compatible.

Yeah, they are. I'm not using MT ship combat. In fact I think it has severe limitations, which you have gotten me interested in solving, by going back to something LBB2 inspired.

My dream would be to be able to use my MT ship data "as is", though.

 

[Cymew]

Originally posted by WJP:

Originally posted by Cymew:
BTW, now that you have written this stuff about ranges I get a bit confused about that lined notebook system for starship movement and combat

Do you have a short/medium/long/v.long range band system, where every band have a different amount of "hexes" - notebook lines? Or are each band 10 000 km long?

Sounds like it's a terminology thing.

Range Bands are 10,000 km long. If you're using lined notebook paper, each line represents 10,000 km. If you're using a hex board or square grid to plot movement, each hex or square is 10,000 km wide.


A terminology thing then. In MT there are "range bands" that "contain" hexes, so to speak. I hadn't gotten the impression the CT range band system used them. Terminology, right.

The only thing I wish for now is that you make up a system for grabbing MT ship data and using this package, and you sensor rules, in a MT session without having to recalulate stuff or dig out CT ship data.

Having just one system to build all sizes of craft is a great idea, and I just wished all this good stuff for CT was usable with it "out of the box".

Oooo ... sorry, but I'm afraid I'm a CT kinda guy. If you're using MT space combat, you'll have to convert.

It shouldn't be too hard, though. CT an MT are very compatible.

Yeah, they are. I'm not using MT ship combat. In fact I think it has severe limitations, which you have gotten me interested in solving, by going back to something LBB2 inspired.

My dream would be to be able to use my MT ship data "as is", though.

 

[Supplement Four]

Just thinking outloud here, but what about a "recycling" or "recharging" penalty.

The capacitors take about 15 minutes to fully charge -- giving us the base 1-shot-per-round in Book 2.

But, a gunner can pre-fire a laser before it's fully charged, gaining more attacks in a round (but each shot is weaker).

The number of shot fired in a round is limited to the gunner's skill. A Gunner-2 could take three shots in a round, for example (first one free, then up to two more). This is the gunner using his expertise and knowlege of the weapon to fire it past its "manufacturer's settings".

If one shot is taken during a combat round, there is no modifer (normal Book 2 shots - requires Gunner-0).

If a weapon is fired twice in a round (requires Gunner-1), apply a -1DM to both attack and damage.

If a weapon is fired three times in a round (requires Gunner-2), apply a -2DM to both attack and damage.

If a weapon is fired four times a round (requires a Gunner-3), apply a -3DM to both attack and damage.

...and so on.

When a DM is applied to damage, if the roll is 6-, apply the DM as a +DM. When the damage roll is 7+, apply the DM as a -DM. (What this will do is keep the weaker shots to the less-damaging areas on the Book 2 hit location chart).

Thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

Just thinking outloud here, but what about a "recycling" or "recharging" penalty.

The capacitors take about 15 minutes to fully charge -- giving us the base 1-shot-per-round in Book 2.

But, a gunner can pre-fire a laser before it's fully charged, gaining more attacks in a round (but each shot is weaker).

The number of shot fired in a round is limited to the gunner's skill. A Gunner-2 could take three shots in a round, for example (first one free, then up to two more). This is the gunner using his expertise and knowlege of the weapon to fire it past its "manufacturer's settings".

If one shot is taken during a combat round, there is no modifer (normal Book 2 shots - requires Gunner-0).

If a weapon is fired twice in a round (requires Gunner-1), apply a -1DM to both attack and damage.

If a weapon is fired three times in a round (requires Gunner-2), apply a -2DM to both attack and damage.

If a weapon is fired four times a round (requires a Gunner-3), apply a -3DM to both attack and damage.

...and so on.

When a DM is applied to damage, if the roll is 6-, apply the DM as a +DM. When the damage roll is 7+, apply the DM as a -DM. (What this will do is keep the weaker shots to the less-damaging areas on the Book 2 hit location chart).

Thoughts?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Cymew:
My dream would be to be able to use my MT ship data "as is", though.

Which ship data are you wanting to use?

I mean, much of CT data is MT data--the M-Drive rating, for example.

I guess if you're talking about the PP rating for a ship (for use in the sensor rules), the CT PP rating isn't listed. But, you can figure the PP rating in about two seconds--just cross-reference the higher of the M-Drive rating or the J-Drive rating on the Book 2 chart with the hull size ... wa-laaa, you've got the PP code.

Inside of a game, it will take you just a moment to come up with that--you could probably almost do it in your sleep.

The computer model number should be just as easy to determine -- it's equal to your ship's J-Drive in most cases.

All you need for my sensor rules is Computer model number and PP code (plus which ever sensor Class you pick for the vessel--which will probably be Class I in most cases).

Very little conversion required--and definitely something you could do on the spur of a moment during a game.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Cymew:
My dream would be to be able to use my MT ship data "as is", though.

Which ship data are you wanting to use?

I mean, much of CT data is MT data--the M-Drive rating, for example.

I guess if you're talking about the PP rating for a ship (for use in the sensor rules), the CT PP rating isn't listed. But, you can figure the PP rating in about two seconds--just cross-reference the higher of the M-Drive rating or the J-Drive rating on the Book 2 chart with the hull size ... wa-laaa, you've got the PP code.

Inside of a game, it will take you just a moment to come up with that--you could probably almost do it in your sleep.

The computer model number should be just as easy to determine -- it's equal to your ship's J-Drive in most cases.

All you need for my sensor rules is Computer model number and PP code (plus which ever sensor Class you pick for the vessel--which will probably be Class I in most cases).

Very little conversion required--and definitely something you could do on the spur of a moment during a game.

 

[Cymew]

I'm not really sure what am differing between CT and MT, but the large blob of text that is a MT UCP is fairly different than the CT equivalent. Most of it good info, though.

The PP rating is one I miss. So, according to your method a Far Trader 200dton with M-1 and J-2 has a PP-B then? A Corsair 440dton, M-3, J-2 has a PP-J, right?

Interesting. I'm regularly amazed by how you CT grognards know these LBB by heart!

The Computer model is actually in there.

 

[Cymew]

I'm not really sure what am differing between CT and MT, but the large blob of text that is a MT UCP is fairly different than the CT equivalent. Most of it good info, though.

The PP rating is one I miss. So, according to your method a Far Trader 200dton with M-1 and J-2 has a PP-B then? A Corsair 440dton, M-3, J-2 has a PP-J, right?

Interesting. I'm regularly amazed by how you CT grognards know these LBB by heart!

The Computer model is actually in there.