Sensors and Engagement Ranges

[kilemall]

Meh.

Fine effort, but it's still a stats-fest. Maneuver or no. Fleet with best stats wins.

If you play Imperium line em up style yes. Not so much with where I am going with this, particularly the missile vee impact part which this particular thought experiment does not have.

Having played many many SFB/Starfire games, space maneuver DOES matter, even with the Starfire mechanic which does not have any arc but the basic 300+ degree or so one. As long as you have different weapons that have different characteristics at different ranges and there is advantage in picking scissors/rock/paper against enemy design/operations doctrine, maneuver matters.

Oh, and don't forget, this is a thought experiment to derive commentary and lessons for my actual design decisions, as I stated I don't know that I would want to actually play this.

Among other things I am illustrating my idea of ranging and how destructive things can get closing, which means most fleets are going to keep a survival distance, and how important managing maneuver/fire relationships to infinite die rolling are to player enjoyment. For the latter point, this is actually a negative example of what you DON'T want.

There's no reason to maneuver other than to close or run away. Facing only affects the spinal, but there's no motivation to not just fly headlong in to each other. If the facing ends up making the spinal impractical, folks will simply design them out of ships to get more turrets/bays, and save costs (which nets more turrets and bays on the field). All the spinal really does it keep a ship from changing speeds. But this isn't really a disadvantage, since ships will likely be coasting more than not, and when they do need to accelerate, it's more than likely they're doing it to "run away" and the spinal would be out of arc anyway. So, no blasting opponents in a running retreat with the spinal.

Hmm, agree/disagree on several points.

There IS closing and opening range advantages with the energy weapon/meson gun close range aspect, when cross-indexed with the 'how much armor vs. how much maneuver vs. anti-meson hull design' it means ship design just got a whole lot more complex, when actual range changing maneuver matters.

Note the rule I have in there re: Fleet/Ship Tactics maneuver- VERY big in getting to choose optimal range, and more importantly the player(s) have a choice. I daresay an investment in commanders that can choose range could be as important as the ships themselves.

And in a Mayday environment the ranges don't all have to be short or long or just one blob of fleet moving together- different ships optimized for different range engagements can maneuver to their optimal survival/fire delivery range.

Or outmaneuvering an enemy means perhaps taking advantage of their having too high a vee and shifting the focus of firepower on a lesser portion of their fleet while the main one sails off, with the potential of defeat in detail.

I also disagree with the assertion that spinal weapons would be unusable or not desirable- with the rule in place it just means you set your max vee early in the battle and then use your agility for defense. Spinals are too powerful a tool to lay aside in the HG context.

I would expect what I call the fishhook maneuver would be standard- set engagement vee, use agility normally while firing spinals on the close pass, accelerate as the ranges increase at less then maximum to swing the ships around and reengage.

Also disagree with the blasting- once an enemy is disengaging, the following fleet simply chooses to either follow if they can using bays if maximum thrust is needed, maneuver to be lined up against their targets if they have EP for both, or not accelerate at maximum and blaze away without risking return fire. The very model of the classic Imperium/HG retreat free round of fire.

If you are complaining retreaters are getting pummeled by accelerating out of the battlefield, well why yes they are. Losing has consequences.

I agree that bay weapons might become more desirable then they are now with that spinal disadvantage, but I don't see that as destabilizing to the game, rather making the cruiser-sized ship a more viable design choice, or emphasizing hull/armor/maneuver choices for the TCS campaign dollar spent.

Also makes the 'battleships' a bit less maneuverable and lighter ships that don't have hull and power tied to a spinal more able to choose range relative to the big boys.

 

[kilemall]

Since there is really no facing, maneuver benefits/punishes both attacker/defender. A fast opponent can fly up on a slow opponent, but both benefit from the close range. In fact, if the fast attacker doesn't have initiative, he's punished by getting to shoot second, despite being the one that controls the engagement range.

True, but he also knows he lost initiative when he makes his move. So if he doesn't want to suffer first shot X times up close he's likely to move to a more survivable range.

Your phase chart is no different, conceptually, than the SFB impulse chart. It's just backwards. In SFB you have 32 firing opportunities, and N movement opportunities based on your speed. You have N firing opportunities based range.

Correct. Since this is Mayday/Traveller, we have momentum instead of impulses based on speed.

I wasn't the one picking 1 LS per hex ranges and 300 minute time scales for maneuver- I just applied the actual HG ratio of power generated in X time to fire.

Doesn't feel right does it, even though nothing is 'wrong' with the modelling.

The way I read this is that in a normal round, a ship will move. And in the extreme case of two ships closing to range zero, they then get to proceed to pump 30 shots into each other. So, basically range 0 has 30 times the chance to hit than range 15. But I assume the to-hit number is the same regardless of range, since the phasing makes long range "harder to hit" due to less shots involved. Otherwise, range gets doubly punished.

That's correct, no HG to hit alterations with this go-round.

But I am illustrating just how lethal I intend to make that final range 0 exchange should someone press it.

Again, no one boards or closes to a powered ship with weapons except with disposable gigs/small craft. In retrospect the Gazelle design just looks that much better for it's task.

The only real benefit of this mechanic is that larger ships will be more destructive to smaller ships as they can change their fire throughout 15 phases of the firing sequence. So, a ship with 100 turrets, having to roll, say, 50% chance to hit (I have no idea what your hit numbers are, but I assume they're not based on range, since the phase mechanic handles that), at range 8, can inflict 400 hits on a single ship down to 50 hits on 8 individual ships (assuming all at the same range). So you can easily see this eating up small ships (like fighters, or missiles -- missiles are toast in this system). In contrast to a normal combat round where the ship would have to allocate all of their fire once, and make 12 attempts per target, resulting in 6 hits per target. But they likely wouldn't do that. Better to destroy them one at a time than damage them equally. Anyway, the phase system gives the firing player finer resolution over the placement of their shots in contrast to the single round combat. They get to shoot and evaluate many more times than the 1 move, 1 shoot idiom.

Well yes, the ratio of maneuver to fire IS unpleasant, and the main reason why I would not want to play this version particularly (maybe as a background battle to player actions at the most).

That was intentional, to highlight why scale of range, speed of acceleration, ratio of energy generation/weapons fire to maneuver and player choice, is a critical design element, and why if one is to stick with the 1-6G regimen that you have to be very judicious with those design relationships.

I don't think it would play out that way, most admirals are going to be willing to have a go at it but not risk the fleet by closing to range 1, the range the full 15 fire phases occur. I would expect something more like changing between range 4 to 11, which yields a 5-12 firing phase ratio to maneuver.

This isn't that much different from regular HG, after 15 turns the escorting small ships are going to end up being torn up, even if only a portion of the light weapons are turned on them.

Note this incurs a design penalty of sorts for fusion/meson close ships- in order to close to optimal ranges they have to go into a progressively more lethal environment.

PA/missile armed ships may be preferred by several navies merely because they don't have to risk a deadlier engagement envelope. Or a standard doctrine might involve mixed close/long range weapons so the maneuver situation can be mitigated no matter what happens.

In the end, depending on how you manage the hit numbers, the only real difference between this and normal mayday/high guard is potentially lethality, simply because of higher fire rates.

As stated all rules are the same except for the specific ones I expressed, so fire percentages are still the same with close and long ranges as per the Mayday rules.

I think the spinal and command/move rules are rather more important then you seem to be giving them credit for, but it's not just higher fire rates- it's lethality at range, and I don't think most admirals would be keen on just closing to 0-1 and blasting.

But if the hit numbers are adjusted to basically be "the same" as "one round of high guard", then the only real difference is the resolution and placement of the fire over numbers of targets. One on one, ship to ship, there wouldn't be any difference at all. Just more dice rolling to lesser effect.

There isn't any adjustment, they ARE the HG hit numbers, but I don't agree with your conclusion. What ships are at what range and how much pounding they can take or relative agility count, and how badly people want to close or open the range vs. generate misses affects how agility is used.

In my 'real' version, I certainly would have range DMs, but again this is a thought experiment relative to weapon effect/probability and lethality of range, the easiest way to express it for a quick look is to use HG numbers everyone is familiar with but employed in a different manner then 'normal'.

FYI you can eliminate the whitespace in those posts by eliminating the line breaks in your HTML table. Just make your table one long line.

I did originally render the table in HTML- generated too many characters to be posted, I wasn't going to bother hosting a file and that sort of thing ultimately breaks at some point in the future, the above are text and bbcode versions that were converted from the original and fit the character limits.

Thanks to Aramis for the trick, something is wonky with how bbcode is rendering [th].

 

[aramis]

Thanks to Aramis for the trick, something is wonky with how bbcode is rendering [th].

It's really simple - the BBS doesn't strip returns outside the tags, and converts them to linebreaks. You MUST manually strip them.

 

[kilemall]

NO bites?

Okay, gedanken experiment #2.

Alright, let's consider a Mayday conversion of Mongoose Traveller (1E) as another means of illustrating this time/scale/action design thing.

Here the detection would be considerably farther out given the 'can't hide in space' ruling (and I suspect the limits are defined in MgT1 HG) but engagement ranges are less then 50,000 km, and differences of 1000 km matter.

I would assume there is a lot of maneuver, a lot of survivability through escape, a LOT of elegance in the MgT1 hull/structure and engineering drama resolution nuances, but most ACS ships critical/crack up far faster then their CT versions, which is in line with my thinking re: the shorter range effects (only so many dodges/anti missile actions).

Although not quite so fast as an ACS ship getting hit in HG with a larger bay weapon.

On the other hand, armor is quite a bit more powerful, taking a lot of smaller weapons entirely out of the picture. Even a low tech grade 20% of the hull is worth combat gold.

There is no time/distance scale listed per se as MgT1 is clearly designed for storytelling not Newtonian motion, but we can extrapolate it from assuming 1G of thrust still means 10 m per second acceleration and the listed 'thrust times' to range band changes in the movement rules.

It works out to every MgT thrust is 200 seconds at 1 G going 2000 km per maneuver/battle round.

A 5G fighter or missile can put on 10000 km in 200 seconds. The missile hit rules suggest an outer range of 200000 km for engagements.

So 200 seconds of character action, and 2000 km per hex in Mayday, G and vee move rules the same, resolve modifiers as per band rules.

This is exactly 1/5 the time and distance of a classic CT maneuver turn.

So the weapons are firing at 5x the per second rate of the CT/HG ships, but at much closer ranges at relatively lower probabilities given the lesser distance and greater potential 'punch' per shot. Perhaps lower power costs per weapon and definitely faster cyclic rates. The missile launch rates seem a lot more 'real' feeling too.

The extreme range band works out to 25 hexes, the edge of many 30-hex sheets, or within the comfort zone of laying two 20-hex sheets end to end (good for stern chases too). You could shift up to a 20000 km per hex scale for long range chases, detects, or Big Battles.

Be a heck of a shock for range band/storytelling guys to be put on a Mayday board, deal with vee suddenly and find their unwise 'flank speed Scotty' order causes them to sail out of the battle, possibly detection range.

Anyway, this shows an example of something much closer to what I am looking for, a time/move/character interaction scale that puts players in the action without excessive downtime for anyone.

However, it has what feels like a very cramped range to me, and if anything has a worse 'tech compression' problem then CT/HG, TL8 not being that much different from 11, and TL11 not that much from TL15.

SO not quite there, but again this is a thought example for discussion.

 

[whartung]

Having played many many SFB/Starfire games, space maneuver DOES matter, even with the Starfire mechanic which does not have any arc but the basic 300+ degree or so one. As long as you have different weapons that have different characteristics at different ranges and there is advantage in picking scissors/rock/paper against enemy design/operations doctrine, maneuver matters.

It matters when there's terrain involved (artificial or natural). SFB has the combination of weapons facing and shields to impose artificial terrain through the combination of space control zone (i.e. being in arc of FA overloaded photons vs not), and ship vulnerability (i.e. I'll wait until my next move to fire as I'll then be in arc of their down shield, vs not). The 300 degree fire arc in Starfire is enough to make maneuver more important. You get on the tail of a Super Dreadnought with a laser armed fighter, that SD is going to have a bad day -- and, because the fighter is faster, it can not shake the fighter (it can turn off its drives, thus eliminating the blind spot -- but that will certainly be costly). That said, the fighter has to weather the fire of the SD all the way in to get to that blind spot.

Outside of the spinal arc, none of these matter in Traveller. And, I'll take the odds against a single shot of a Spinal Meson gun than a 100 nuclear missiles from all sides.

Even BL, as detailed as it was, only had 3 facings: front, side, and rear, and for most ships the facing is even disregarded -- it barely affected only the largest of ships. Most weapons were bearing most of the time regardless of facing.

So, outside of range, and HG has 2 ranges, maneuver has pretty much no effect on Traveller combat. Outside of energy weapons, range is a -1 DM.

Among other things I am illustrating my idea of ranging and how destructive things can get closing, which means most fleets are going to keep a survival distance, and how important managing maneuver/fire relationships to infinite die rolling are to player enjoyment. For the latter point, this is actually a negative example of what you DON'T want.

Just seems that the phase fire mechanic is over complicated and could be better done with DMs, but DMs don't have a universal probability effect (i.e. you can't simply add a DM to an arbitrary roll that will make the result twice as probable, for example).

Hmm, agree/disagree on several points.

There IS closing and opening range advantages with the energy weapon/meson gun close range aspect, when cross-indexed with the 'how much armor vs. how much maneuver vs. anti-meson hull design' it means ship design just got a whole lot more complex, when actual range changing maneuver matters.

But again, it's just range. And the fastest ship controls the range and…that's that. I, frankly, never saw any advantage to energy weapons. Same number of turrets as beam lasers, same change to hit, same damage type, cost more, and can't fire at long range. There may be one small window of TL where the energy weapon is better, or maybe on smaller ships. They do have the +2 to penetrate, just not sure it's worth enough to offset being able to fire at long range.

Note the rule I have in there re: Fleet/Ship Tactics maneuver- VERY big in getting to choose optimal range, and more importantly the player(s) have a choice. I daresay an investment in commanders that can choose range could be as important as the ships themselves.

But it comes down to my fundamental issue. Fleet design determines outcome, not the mechanics of combat. It's like the card game War -- the victor is determined at the deal of the cards, you just don't know who it is until you play it out. With HG like systems, the fleet design is dominant, not the tactics of play. So there are strategic choices like placement of commanders, ship design, fleet economics, fleet intelligence, etc. But once the fleets arrive -- the deal is done. The tactical options available to the players is low enough that the obvious choices are obvious. Yes, it could be played badly, but reasonable play will result in a statistical outcome. If Fleet A would beat Fleet B 70% of the time simply firing weapons at each other, without maneuver, played "reasonably", you'd get the same outcome "with" maneuver.

And in a Mayday environment the ranges don't all have to be short or long or just one blob of fleet moving together- different ships optimized for different range engagements can maneuver to their optimal survival/fire delivery range.

Or outmaneuvering an enemy means perhaps taking advantage of their having too high a vee and shifting the focus of firepower on a lesser portion of their fleet while the main one sails off, with the potential of defeat in detail.

Which means you won't do that. This basically means you WILL keep your fleet as a blob. It's not to say that there aren't tactical options, just that there are few of them, and the options are pretty black and white as to "right and wrong". It's simply not a rich tactical environment, and that just makes the mechanics time consuming. Combat theater.

I also disagree with the assertion that spinal weapons would be unusable or not desirable- with the rule in place it just means you set your max vee early in the battle and then use your agility for defense. Spinals are too powerful a tool to lay aside in the HG context.

They're only powerful if you can bring them to bear. And that boils down to the size of the arc that you are going to allow for the spinal. 60 deg? 30? 15? If the ships are coasting, then they're "always" in arc, since the ship should be able to point wherever they want. And if the ships are accelerating, then odds are they are "never" in arc (if they are, it's as much dumb luck as anything, or the player decided to take a round an coast rather than accelerate).

If you're going to rely on hex facing (or corner facing ala BL), then a narrow arc (like 15 deg) is more difficult to employ. There are simply "dead zones" due to resolution that the ship can not face. All of these make spinals less and less attractive.

And finally, yea, a spinal is powerful, it CAN "one shot one kill", but the ODDs of that happening tend to be low. Spinals are more apt to get their USP code burned down before they get a solid hit than anything else, making them more apt as "weapon armor" than an actual combat effective gun when the enemy is salvoing 100 laser or missile attacks at you every turn (or even more in your case).

I would expect what I call the fishhook maneuver would be standard- set engagement vee, use agility normally while firing spinals on the close pass, accelerate as the ranges increase at less then maximum to swing the ships around and reengage.

Correct. Exactly. Accelerate, coast, close, blast away, Decelerate, Turn, Accelerate, rinse and repeat. Knights jousting. To where the maneuver is generic enough and routine enough that you can end up factoring it out of the actual mechanic of combat (such as HG already does).

I agree that bay weapons might become more desirable then they are now with that spinal disadvantage, but I don't see that as destabilizing to the game, rather making the cruiser-sized ship a more viable design choice, or emphasizing hull/armor/maneuver choices for the TCS campaign dollar spent.

No, I don't think it will destabilize the game, but it may well remove the "Spinal Meson is the queen of all weapons" trope.

 

[kilemall]

Arc<snip>

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Outside of the spinal arc, none of these matter in Traveller. And, I'll take the odds against a single shot of a Spinal Meson gun than a 100 nuclear missiles from all sides.

Even BL, as detailed as it was, only had 3 facings: front, side, and rear, and for most ships the facing is even disregarded -- it barely affected only the largest of ships. Most weapons were bearing most of the time regardless of facing.

So, outside of range, and HG has 2 ranges, maneuver has pretty much no effect on Traveller combat. Outside of energy weapons, range is a -1 DM.[/FONT]

In a sense I agree that generic Traveller does not deal in facings very much, nor perhaps should it- I abolish the Batteries Bearing silliness straight off, with everything BUT spinals being big turrets or VL cells and ship roll and yaw everything should be able to bear at one point or another.

Disagree very much with maneuver does not count, true in HG, not true in CT or Mayday.

Example, RL battleships had most of their weapons bearing most of the time at least on their approaches and broadside maneuvers, and would have an opportunity for full weapons pulling away depending on relative enemy activity.

Yet commanders did maneuver them, and that was to get into optimal RANGES. Default HG:Mayday, doesn't matter much? Yes. The increased lethality I'm showing here? No range does matter.

Now I do agree in one other way, the endgame is to come up with a high drama fight your ship version which certainly WILL have facings. I have firm ideas on that point, and will be doing it as how the ship is rolled WILL count- but that's not what I am working through here with this thread.

This thread is separating out the sensor/range correlated to the maneuver/fire/player action issue, not to have a finished comprehensive system.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Just seems that the phase fire mechanic is over complicated and could be better done with DMs, but DMs don't have a universal probability effect (i.e. you can't simply add a DM to an arbitrary roll that will make the result twice as probable, for example).[/FONT]

Thought experiment. Of COURSE I have a DM endgame, please ignore the thought experiment as playable game cause it ain't and I have said so repeatedly, the point that keeps getting missed is what about the lethality/probability curve I have set up? No one remarks on that, positive or negative. That's ALL it's meant for.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]But again, it's just range. And the fastest ship controls the range and…that's that. I, frankly, never saw any advantage to energy weapons. Same number of turrets as beam lasers, same change to hit, same damage type, cost more, and can't fire at long range. There may be one small window of TL where the energy weapon is better, or maybe on smaller ships. They do have the +2 to penetrate, just not sure it's worth enough to offset being able to fire at long range.
[/FONT]

This is where playing against enemy doctrine counts. Does the enemy religiously use scads of sand for protection AND you plan to have bruiser and/or fast closing fleets? Or they tend to close and you need a solid close cheap weapon? Probably a good buy then, otherwise not.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]But it comes down to my fundamental issue. Fleet design determines outcome, not the mechanics of combat. It's like the card game War -- the victor is determined at the deal of the cards, you just don't know who it is until you play it out. With HG like systems, the fleet design is dominant, not the tactics of play. So there are strategic choices like placement of commanders, ship design, fleet economics, fleet intelligence, etc. But once the fleets arrive -- the deal is done. The tactical options available to the players is low enough that the obvious choices are obvious. Yes, it could be played badly, but reasonable play will result in a statistical outcome. If Fleet A would beat Fleet B 70% of the time simply firing weapons at each other, without maneuver, played "reasonably", you'd get the same outcome "with" maneuver.[/FONT]

Pshew, disagree with that one. Certainly ship design is dominant, because gosh it's a ship design game, but once you put them on the board and a major part of their fleet drifts out of the battle off because you blew their maneuver drives off, well it's changed from the HG/Imperium style resolution.

And generating enemy error is rather a big part of the proceedings of battle, or so I've read.

 

[kilemall]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Which means you won't do that. This basically means you WILL keep your fleet as a blob. It's not to say that there aren't tactical options, just that there are few of them, and the options are pretty black and white as to "right and wrong". It's simply not a rich tactical environment, and that just makes the mechanics time consuming. Combat theater. [/FONT]

VERY much depends on what options are baked into the fleet designs and intended doctrines vs. what is actually available at the battle. That's big variables right there.

Also, a huge variable is the sensor range, which is still half of the commentary I am trying to elicit here. The sensor range determines options for maneuver, set up drift/agility vee, and the terms of engagement. HUGE, and something that changes outcomes.

If one were to use something like the MgT sensor systems, tactical intelligence as to what got hit and what state enemy ships were in are a function of range too. I'm having to consider that too, although again out to make it as stupid simple as possible while giving flavor.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]They're only powerful if you can bring them to bear. And that boils down to the size of the arc that you are going to allow for the spinal. 60 deg? 30? 15? If the ships are coasting, then they're "always" in arc, since the ship should be able to point wherever they want. And if the ships are accelerating, then odds are they are "never" in arc (if they are, it's as much dumb luck as anything, or the player decided to take a round an coast rather than accelerate).

If you're going to rely on hex facing (or corner facing ala BL), then a narrow arc (like 15 deg) is more difficult to employ. There are simply "dead zones" due to resolution that the ship can not face. All of these make spinals less and less attractive.

And finally, yea, a spinal is powerful, it CAN "one shot one kill", but the ODDs of that happening tend to be low. Spinals are more apt to get their USP code burned down before they get a solid hit than anything else, making them more apt as "weapon armor" than an actual combat effective gun when the enemy is salvoing 100 laser or missile attacks at you every turn (or even more in your case).
[/FONT]

Well, I am using the HG:Mayday setup to illustrate range lethality, but what if the spinals are treated like battleship guns, outranging the 'cruiser' guns that bay weapons represent? My endgame design fully intends a Big Gun/Big Armor effect along with heroic fighter attacks, scary missiles,energy allocation, rolling to expose weapons or protect hull breaches, and other variables to make it an actual tactical game.

And one spinal weapon per hull? Posh. MOAR.

But first, sensors and range and maneuver interaction.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Correct. Exactly. Accelerate, coast, close, blast away, Decelerate, Turn, Accelerate, rinse and repeat. Knights jousting. To where the maneuver is generic enough and routine enough that you can end up factoring it out of the actual mechanic of combat (such as HG already does).[/FONT]

The spinal armed ships would be doing that. Not necessarily the missile or bay weapon people. But I haven't got to any of that. I'm just dealing with this one problem set here.

The fishhook wouldn't be so much jousting as a turn to keep in range. Trust me, no spinal big boy is going to want to run at missile armed cruisers.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]No, I don't think it will destabilize the game, but it may well remove the "Spinal Meson is the queen of all weapons" trope. [/FONT]

That would be a design validation victory. Multiple paths to victory should always be the watchword of an RPG or a wargame, particularly of the speculative kind.

 

[mike wightman]

Sensor range - you detect the enemy eventually.
Maneuver - you either choose to maneuver towards the enemy, maintain distance or run away.
Weapon range - you start firing when you think you have a chance to hit, the enemy has the same chance to hit, it comes down to weapon loadout.

Within weapon range do you:
maintain a range where weapon fire is determined by probability
close so weapon fire becomes more accurate and more damaging (for you and your opponent)
close as quickly as possible to achieve maximum chance o hit and damage but risk suicide.

It has long been my view that the designers of HG had come to the conclusion that most battles are fought between fleets that try to maintain range and wear down the opponent until closing becomes a less than suicidal option, hence maneuver can be abstracted.

If you play a few of the vector movement games you soon spot the noob, they are the ones who build up too high a velocity and so lose the ability to maneuver effectively, the more nuanced players keep their v under control so they can actually turn.

There are occasions where you may want to make a high v pass, but it will be many rounds of combat before you can dump that v, turn around and re-engage.

 

[whartung]

It has long been my view that the designers of HG had come to the conlclusion that most battles are fought between fleets that try to maintain range and wear down the opponent until closing becomes a less than suicidal option, hence maneuver can be abstracted.

Exactly my point. After looking at Mayday, HG, BL, and BR, I have seen much of anything in any of them that suggests that the outcome of the fights is not predominantly decided by fleet composition, to the point that maneuver (performed reasonably, vs incompetently) does not provide any real difference in outcome over just lining the ships up and blasting away.

And I consider this simply a reality of any space combat system that has any real color of "reality" in it.

SFB, in contrast, has "no" reality other than it's own self-imposed reality. Since they can make the universe up as they go to match the mechanics, they can do whatever they want. And in the end, they offer a complicated game that has immense depth. Good players will dominate poor players. Superior tactics carry the field. A DD can decidedly beat a CA. A good player can embarrass a bad player. They simply have no idea what happened to them. It's not just knowledge of the rules (of which SFB has legion), it's application of them.

So, my point is, that I don't know if a "realistic" space system can actually "get" any better than just High Guard, in terms of outcomes of battles. I doubt anyone has played enough games of a tactical nature to really consider it.

Or, GDW has, and HG was the result.

I've played (and seen played) enough SFB to see and experience it's depth. I simply don't think a realistic system, has that much depth with competent players.

 

[kilemall]

Sensor range - you detect the enemy eventually.
Maneuver - you either choose to maneuver towards the enemy, maintain distance or run away.
Weapon range - you start firing when you think you have a chance to hit, the enemy has the same chance to hit, it comes down to weapon loadout.

Within weapon range do you:
maintain a range where weapon fire is determined by probability
close so weapon fire becomes more accurate and more damaging (for you and your opponent)
close as quickly as possible to achieve maximum chance o hit and damage but risk suicide.

It has long been my view that the designers of HG had come to the conlclusion that most battles are fought between fleets that try to maintain range and wear down the opponent until closing becomes a less than suicidal option, hence maneuver can be abstracted.

If you play a few of the vector movement games you soon spot the noob, they are the ones who build up too high a velocity and so lose the ability to maneuver effectively, the more nuanced players keep their v under control so they can actually turn.

There are occasions where you may want to make a high v pass, but it will be many rounds of combat before you can dump that v, turn around and re-engage.

Hmm, I would say they played a lot of Triplanetary and Imperium before they got around to Mayday and HG.

Mayday is the Triplanetary take on Traveller ships and HG is Imperium ship design and bashing. They are designed for their specific resolution milieu, Imperium:HG sort of space equivalents to ship battle resolution of AH's War At Sea.

As such the HG system never was designed for minis or wargame movement like CT mini Traveller ship combat was.

What I am after here is to drop an HG design ship, with no serious alterations in design options and economics, into a revamped maneuver/fire game that DOES make meaningful tactical decision cycles such as the ones you listed, and a slightly more complicated game for the RPG level commander to fight his ship.

It can be done, in the same sense War At Sea and it's ethos does not eliminate choices made by players commanding in Seekrieg, Harpoon or Command At Sea.

But I need people to respond to what I am asking about, not whether the enterprise is 'much ado about nothing'.

I'll take care of mechanics to where it matters a great deal, I need commentary on feel for range and RPG phasing, based on what we already know, that Traveller ships accelerate at with 10 meters per second per G rating and all the timing/range issues that flow from that standard.

 

[kilemall]

Exactly my point. After looking at Mayday, HG, BL, and BR, I have seen much of anything in any of them that suggests that the outcome of the fights is not predominantly decided by fleet composition, to the point that maneuver (performed reasonably, vs incompetently) does not provide any real difference in outcome over just lining the ships up and blasting away.

And I consider this simply a reality of any space combat system that has any real color of "reality" in it.

SFB, in contrast, has "no" reality other than it's own self-imposed reality. Since they can make the universe up as they go to match the mechanics, they can do whatever they want. And in the end, they offer a complicated game that has immense depth. Good players will dominate poor players. Superior tactics carry the field. A DD can decidedly beat a CA. A good player can embarrass a bad player. They simply have no idea what happened to them. It's not just knowledge of the rules (of which SFB has legion), it's application of them.

I would agree that SFB is cinematic as befits it's subject matter.

But theoretically the RL Bismarck should not have got away unscathed from it's initial battle, and Taffy 3 should not have stumped the IJN. What Happens Matters more then What Should Happen.

So I want to put in the opportunity for that 10% chance of a result that can change galactic history for big battles, and more importantly for clever play on the part of players to matter rather then who has The Biggest Treasury.

The trick is to dislodge the 'small ships splode and maneuver is abstract nothing', and it's simpler then folks think it is. The bones are there, we just have to flesh it out.

So, my point is, that I don't know if a "realistic" space system can actually "get" any better than just High Guard, in terms of outcomes of battles. I doubt anyone has played enough games of a tactical nature to really consider it.

Or, GDW has, and HG was the result.

I've played (and seen played) enough SFB to see and experience it's depth. I simply don't think a realistic system, has that much depth with competent players.

It can be.

If only I could get some help on feel.

 

[whartung]

But theoretically the RL Bismarck should not have got away unscathed from it's initial battle, and Taffy 3 should not have stumped the IJN. What Happens Matters more then What Should Happen.

Bismarck didn't get away unscathed after it "Crit" the Hood, and the PoW withdrew. It was damaged enough to force it to discontinue its breakout in to the Atlantic as planned. Bismarck won the battle, but lost the war at that point.

Later, the British fleet "crit" the Bismarck by disabling its rudder at which point the Bismarck was a dead duck.

Taffy 3 is a great story. A great story of how the lack of intelligence affects the battle field. A great story of morale and heroism. Both things the games model really poorly.

So I want to put in the opportunity for that 10% chance of a result that can change galactic history for big battles, and more importantly for clever play on the part of players to matter rather then who has The Biggest Treasury.

At the individual component level, luck can have an impact. We've all seen the single army drain off 10 attackers as it stubbornly defended it's colored spot on a Risk map. Potentially even enough to ruin the momentum of the drive. We've all rolled great rolls, or had really crummy roles befall us at critical times. "4 overloaded photons, need 1-5…huh… 4 6's" /laughter. The edges of the bell curve are real and very sharp.

But you can't plan around them. You can only hope for them when the times become desperate.

An SFB game with a pair of cruisers facing off is an interesting game to play. The inch thick rules come in to play offering a large variety of outcomes.

A pair of cruisers in Starfire is uninteresting. They basically maneuver to range and start blasting away. Eventually one will win. There's a wide variety of weapon systems which adds some depth to it, but you can practically model that in your head without having to play it out. For example, putting a missile ship against force beam ship. (And we learn why specialist ships tend to not do well in Starfire, not alone at least). But once the two ship designs are revealed, the outcome is either purely the wisdom of the dice, or pretty obvious.

Clearly Starfire is better played at the fleet level.

HG is even simpler. And with large ships, the bell curve is perfectly in play. When you have 100 missile batteries, the random nature of the game now lies in the damage tables, not the combat tables, because X number of missiles, +/- 1 or 2 WILL get through each round.

So the game becomes a mad die roll fest against damage tables, waiting to see upon whom bad luck falls first.

So, HG becomes not really so interesting at the tactical level. HG is interesting as a mechanic to resolve strategic decisions. Fleets on the big board, hopping from system to system, TCS style. To wit you end up with a FFW game scenario, where combat is much simpler than HG. Here the game is managing the plotting exercise, working with intelligence, trying to keep on top of your forces with orders 3 turns out.

Double blind FFW would either be really interesting, or super frustrating.

The simple truth is that Traveller combat have very few limitations during the combat. I have 10 lasers the fire every turn. So, what am I going to do? I'm going to fire 10 lasers every turn. There's the mechanics of overpowering the lasers, with a risk to take damage to the Power Plant. I've not played the game enough to decide when that's a good idea or not. If the PP hit is basically debilitating, it's simply not worth the risk. If not, what the heck -- burn baby burn.

Your goal of making range more lethal can have impact, but in the end it may simply work out that it's best to simply stack the ships together to where the range alone can not defeat the fleet in detail. Then you just have players flying around these Blobs-o-ships (or two blobs -- the close range blob vs the long range blob). It's important since the range mechanic is dominant to mitigate its impact on the fleet. Splitting the fleet up in to different elements is costly because of the impact of range.

I don't know what the tactics will be, but I expect after a couple of plays, a dominant tactic will filter out.

The trick is to dislodge the 'small ships splode and maneuver is abstract nothing', and it's simpler then folks think it is. The bones are there, we just have to flesh it out.

It can be.

If only I could get some help on feel.

Facing has to matter if you want maneuver to matter. Right now, save for spinals, it doesn't, and spinals are make or break enough to make it matter. Or there needs to be things to hide behind, but "it's space", so that doesn't happen either.

BR and BL have jammers that affect sensor lock. So, those can be used for "hiding". But they affect everyone equally. It's not like infantry shooting out of forest at a tank on the plain, where the infantry get a defensive DM.

Mind, I have this criticism of most "modern" combat. It's so lethal. I like that "chance of 10%" swaying the battle.

Seems to me the place to do the work for space combat is via some ECM/ECCM mechanic. "cloaking", "jamming", etc. Making the battlefield noisy and messy.

 

[kilemall]

Came up with a sensor range rule I think works, but I'm going to have to gut check range vs. maneuver.

Detection ranges based on computer model level, bis models treated as 1.5, 2.5 etc.

M x 100,000 km

Tracking ranges based on ship TL.

(TL + M) x 100,000 km

• So a TL9 Type A with a Mod/1 computer detects at 100000 km (.3 LS) and tracks to 1 million km (3.1 LS),
• a TL12 with a Mod/6 detects at 600000 km (2 LS) and tracks to 1.8 million km (6 LS), and
• a maxed out Mod/9-TL15 is 900000 km (3 LS) and 2.4 million km (8 LS) respectively.

'Feels' about right, even if the ratios are not exactly to CT sensors.



And an example of the sort of elegant design/playing simplicity yet significant choice I am talking about.

 

[kilemall]

My point in bringing up the WWII games is that most WWII mini battles have '75% batteries bearing' yet maneuver counts.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]An SFB game with a pair of cruisers facing off is an interesting game to play. The inch thick rules come in to play offering a large variety of outcomes.
[/FONT]

My experience is different- more about rule lawyering, who knows X obscure rule or can argue to it's being of greater effect then intended, and the scarring effects of Fed emergency decel.

Twice as worse at SFB tourneys, with tractor auction nerds. <Shudder>.

Agreed on the Starfire commentary.

Agreed on HG- as designed. It never WAS a maneuver game, more a function that HG was built to be an Imperium analogue with ship design bashing and not the maneuver game CT minis were.

I'm out to change that, or at least have an alternative where I am not stuck with just the original CT mini/weapons/ship designs, or have to go with the fullbore Striker in Space stuff, or cinematic MgT (although it's computer rules, more reasonable ROF and lovely Hull/Structure/Armor mechanisms ARE appealing).

Lethal range is just the start.

Let's take Sand from CT.

In the original minis it was a cloud of negative DM shot out with little explication, intentional or otherwise.

But it's pretty easy to reason that A) it disperses after X time, B) it's directional since each shot is one canister and so each sand 'casted' is covering only one direction, C) the negative DM would apply to outgoing fire as well as incoming, and D) if the ship accelerates or decelerates past the sand cloud's cover, the protective effect is no longer operative.

Well now you have 'shield facing' even if the ship doesn't, with advantages and disadvantages, and if you like you can characterize the sand as 'terrain in space'.

Now expand 'Sand' into different protective mechanisms- buckshot steel balls for anti-missile work, perhaps exotic sand for the PAs or a plasma cloud to diffract energy weapons, or a general Countermeasures canister that is broadcasting in every band and sensor principle to expand the potential area the ship is in.

Second concept, making the SS3 speed impact work in HG:Mayday.

Those closing speed rules can make even a wimpy CT homing missile into a Long Lance of terror with enough vee. It's reasonable to get 2x3 times the destructive power of a regular hit in the course of an 'average' missile accel.

So, simple mechanic- use normal missile factors for to hit, but at successful damage time calc with impact rules, increase the missile factor accordingly and if they are high enough, treat the missile strike as a spinal weapon hit.

Pretty sure the 'charging blobs' tactic will be dissuaded after a few battles in which fleets impale themselves on missile strikes. Space Agincourt?

That's just some of what I have in mind- without painful weapon arc rules.

 

[whartung]

My experience is different- more about rule lawyering, who knows X obscure rule or can argue to it's being of greater effect then intended, and the scarring effects of Fed emergency decel.

Twice as worse at SFB tourneys, with tractor auction nerds. <Shudder>.

When you're new to the game, you're going to get rule lawyered. The nature of the complexity of the game is such that you learn the basics and then the rest as you encounter it in the wild. When you learn the rules, you find this happens much less often. You also find that you can win and lose the game without rule lawyering ever coming in to play.

Tractor auctions 1 on 1 are easy, they only get silly when they become N body problems (which don't happen in tournament). Put 2 points into your tractor beam, and be prepared to burn the rest with batteries. Typically the opponent has nothing in negative tractor (most people don't), and can only rely on their batteries to counter the auction.

In my experience, in most cases, if you decel, you die. Speed is life in SFB.

But it's pretty easy to reason that A) it disperses after X time, B) it's directional since each shot is one canister and so each sand 'casted' is covering only one direction, C) the negative DM would apply to outgoing fire as well as incoming, and D) if the ship accelerates or decelerates past the sand cloud's cover, the protective effect is no longer operative.

If you make an adjustment to where you can shoot safely through your own sand, and it thus simply becomes a negative DM to the attacker, then there's a benefit. Right now, it punishes both of you, so you as the user are doubly punished, in that you lose the DM by having it up, and you can not maneuver -- in that case, you're basically punished by it more than your opponent. Since the energy weapons are free to fire, I, as an attacker, will continue to fire -- negative DMs or no. It costs me nothing, so may as well, sand or no sand.

Those closing speed rules can make even a wimpy CT homing missile into a Long Lance of terror with enough vee. It's reasonable to get 2x3 times the destructive power of a regular hit in the course of an 'average' missile accel.

So, simple mechanic- use normal missile factors for to hit, but at successful damage time calc with impact rules, increase the missile factor accordingly and if they are high enough, treat the missile strike as a spinal weapon hit.

The generic Mayday Limited 6G6 missile can be a very good space control device, making them more dangerous gives them more respect.

Simply put, a 6G6 missile that is lingering out in space acts as a land mine with a 6 hex radius. Anything that ends up in the zone of control is going to be attacked, thus deterring movement in to that zone. They are, however, difficult to deploy.

If you make them too lethal, though, then ship design will trend towards missile defense, since "we can't afford to let even one of those things get through".

Pretty sure the 'charging blobs' tactic will be dissuaded after a few battles in which fleets impale themselves on missile strikes. Space Agincourt?

If take a stack of ships in SFB and start charging an opponent, the opponent will basically start blasting down the forward shields, at which point it behooves the attacker to turn away as the ship is quite vulnerable. So, over time the blob breaks up as ships peel away.

In Traveller systems, there's no motivation to turn away. Outside of damaging the M drive to where it slow fleet speed, the ships can just keep charging and keep coming. In fact, if you look at BR, you don't fight ships, you fight Task Forces -- blobs of ships. Fleet tactics are used to determine blob sizes, so larger blobs are more advantageous than small blobs.

Also, there's no fratricide issue. In SFB, mines affect all units in the hex, rather than the striking ship. Also, ship explosions act the same way. These are not issues in Traveller, so there's no reason not to stack ships.

 

[kilemall]

When you're new to the game, you're going to get rule lawyered. The nature of the complexity of the game is such that you learn the basics and then the rest as you encounter it in the wild. When you learn the rules, you find this happens much less often. You also find that you can win and lose the game without rule lawyering ever coming in to play.

Perhaps you haven't played with rules lawyers that reinterpret the rules, and become RL lawyers later in large measure by dint of skills already honed in arguing game mechanics.

'Learning' the rules don't matter if they can be changed or argued away.

In my experience, in most cases, if you decel, you die. Speed is life in SFB.

If you are doing unplotted movement. But no need to rehash that one.

If you make an adjustment to where you can shoot safely through your own sand, and it thus simply becomes a negative DM to the attacker, then there's a benefit. Right now, it punishes both of you, so you as the user are doubly punished, in that you lose the DM by having it up, and you can not maneuver -- in that case, you're basically punished by it more than your opponent. Since the energy weapons are free to fire, I, as an attacker, will continue to fire -- negative DMs or no. It costs me nothing, so may as well, sand or no sand.

I greatly disagree.

If you are the Beowulf up against Mr. Corsair, you don't CARE to shoot up the pirates you just want to make 100D. Under those circumstances your goal is to have a sand cloud always between you and them, which means you need to be acceling to keep them on your rear arc. In that case your sand then becomes like 'laying smoke' in naval gun warfare, an escape mechanism that does not slow you down.

Another is laying the cloud so it is between you and laser superior ships, while leaving yourself open to fire unhindered on laser inferior ships.

The generic Mayday Limited 6G6 missile can be a very good space control device, making them more dangerous gives them more respect.

It may be in Mayday time/distance scales. I refuse to play with 5 hour battle turns though in an RPG, which is my primary interest here, so I'm not intending to work it out much. CT ranges and times, TYVM.

Simply put, a 6G6 missile that is lingering out in space acts as a land mine with a 6 hex radius. Anything that ends up in the zone of control is going to be attacked, thus deterring movement in to that zone. They are, however, difficult to deploy.

Er.

But it ISN'T a 6-hex CAPTOR mine. Oh it is from an operational concept perspective, but very few people are going to slow to 0G and drop missiles all over the battlefield. Those missiles are going to have vee, and when they do the engagement envelope starts looking less like a space control device and more like an air-to-air forward missile.

Even if you don't fire up the missile for X turns it's still going to drift out of the battle and since it is a known quantity with likely not enough speed to generate it's own vee and catch an opponent, making them a temporary archer/stake defensive placement in a battle that shifts away from them.

If you make them too lethal, though, then ship design will trend towards missile defense, since "we can't afford to let even one of those things get through".

There are going to be so many ways to kill missiles, it won't be a problem. I'm not interested in creating the 'perfect ship' solution at all. But I do want to make them terrifying- along with everything else.

The real problem is abstracting missiles in a realistic way for larger background battles that captures their qualities and limits, when everything else is moving about the battlefield.

If take a stack of ships in SFB and start charging an opponent, the opponent will basically start blasting down the forward shields, at which point it behooves the attacker to turn away as the ship is quite vulnerable. So, over time the blob breaks up as ships peel away.

In Traveller systems, there's no motivation to turn away. Outside of damaging the M drive to where it slow fleet speed, the ships can just keep charging and keep coming. In fact, if you look at BR, you don't fight ships, you fight Task Forces -- blobs of ships. Fleet tactics are used to determine blob sizes, so larger blobs are more advantageous than small blobs.

Well, I would submit that this is not due to a facing problem per se so much as an armor/range problem.

New Jersey BBs don't close to 4000 yards with Yamatos, they want to get in that sweet range where their shells are plunging in to be able to damage them, and keep dancing at a range where the NJ fire control superiority offsets the power of the Yamatos.

The Yamatos want to increase that range to fire unopposed, or close to certain hits and lethality.

That sort of range interaction is blithely handwaved away into short and long range, even in the official HG:Mayday rules. Again, Imperium resolution to a game where the real play is during the build phase.

Also, there's no fratricide issue. In SFB, mines affect all units in the hex, rather than the striking ship. Also, ship explosions act the same way. These are not issues in Traveller, so there's no reason not to stack ships.

SFB is cinematic AND playing with antimatter. Who knows what Galaxiad HG weapons would do?

In the meantime, if range/weapon/armor interactions are in play, then people will want to keep their ships in an optimal range band, different ships will have different characteristics and roles so they will naturally gravitate to their effective relative distances.

 

[kilemall]

Came up with a sensor range rule I think works, but I'm going to have to gut check range vs. maneuver.

Detection ranges based on computer model level, bis models treated as 1.5, 2.5 etc.

M x 100,000 km

Tracking ranges based on ship TL.

(TL + M) x 100,000 km

• So a TL9 Type A with a Mod/1 computer detects at 100000 km (.3 LS) and tracks to 1 million km (3.1 LS),
• a TL12 with a Mod/6 detects at 600000 km (2 LS) and tracks to 1.8 million km (6 LS), and
• a maxed out Mod/9-TL15 is 900000 km (3 LS) and 2.4 million km (8 LS) respectively.

'Feels' about right, even if the ratios are not exactly to CT sensors.

A bit later, and this sits right with me, that is settled.

Settled on detection, tracking and lock on/scan rules.

Detection is detecting an object. Detection only identifies an object to track, at the moment of detection one only gets course, heading, acceleration if occurring, and size as per HG DM ranges.

Tracking is keeping track of the object once detected. Generally speaking there is no breaking of tracking unless a much larger object, typically a planet/moon, intervenes and the craft can change course unobserved. If even one craft can track, it can update all other friendly craft and the track remains valid.

Lock on, or target solution, is having a precise solution that can be used by weapons. Without a lock, a -4 DM applies.

Once a lock is done, tactical information can start being ascertained, such as size, weapons fit, weapons charging status, weapons bearing, ship attitude, likely power and maneuver capabilities, streamlining, etc.

The TARGET programs are what executes the Lockon function.

Lock can be broken under limited circumstances, and definitely when tracking is broken.

Scan is the same thing as Lock on except it is more of a navigational/science/prospecting tool, cannot feed target solution data to weapons and therefore is common on otherwise civilian craft. It is oriented more towards navigational safety and study.

SCAN programs cost 10% as much as the TARGET/MULTI-TARGET programs, and use Navigation to write in lieu of Gunnery.

Note that an active scan is largely indistinguishable from an active lock, and therefore a relatively innocent scan may result in hostile action.

 

[kilemall]

Decided on a modified 68A resolution for detection, tracking and target/lockon/scan.

Detection ranges based on computer model level, bis models treated as 1.5, 2.5 etc.

(M x 100,000 km) +/- (DA x 10,000 km)

Tracking ranges based on ship TL, ship computer model and array size (the HG ship size modifer or detection array groups).

(TL + M +/- DA) x 100,000 km

• So a TL9 Type A with a Mod/1 computer detects at 90000 km (.3 LS) and tracks to 900,000 km (3 LS),
• a TL12 1000 ton frontier cruiser with a Mod/6 detects at 600000 km (2 LS) and tracks to 1.8 million km (6 LS), and
• a maxed out Mod/9-TL15 100,000 ton cruiser or TARGETLINK group detects at 1.1 million km (3 LS) and 2.6 million km (8.6 LS) respectively.

Ships can be in three potential detection and detectable states- Active, Passive, and Silent.

Active includes emissions of any kind- active sensors, broad radio/laser comms, maneuver/agility, weapons fire/launch, countermeasures, vehicle launch, IFF transponders, etc.

Passive is use of passive sensors, power plant is active but no maneuver beyond attitude thrusters, computer active, no comms except tightband, etc. The moment any maneuver or fire occurs, the ship is considered active, so typically any emission activity will include using active sensors.

Silent is complete shutdown of power, no comms beyond ship range, computers, life support on emergency power and minimal, etc. Sensors are small low or no power units- optical telescopes, small portable IR/radio passive receivers, etc. Silent ships/craft are treated as having Mod/.8 Computers and -3 DM Detecting Array for purposes of range calculation.

If a potential ship to be detected is using tightbeam comms, if the detecting ship is within the tightbeam's LOS the emitting ship is considered active.

Active detects on a 6+, Passive on an 8+, Silent on a 10+.

Every ship in range rolls per turn- a large fleet will have several rolls and can assume to automatically detect active and passive non-stealth ships. If there is a reason to believe there is something to detect, the rolls can be done per tactical phase.

Active targets are detected at full Tracking range, Passive and Silent only at Detection range.

DMs are

+4 Active
-4 Silent
-# Stealth (special)
+ Skill (highest of Navigation, Electronics, or Gunnery)
+/- HG target size DM, missiles/probes are -3
+/- HG detecting array (special)
- Countermeasures (special)

Once detected, objects are tracked until either beyond tracking range or broken by a major object like a planet or extensive asteroid belt, and the object then maneuvers away. No course change means tracking is automatically successful once range and LOS is reestablished.

Detection gives HG size category, course, heading, weapons fire/type, acceleration, and nothing else.

Target/Scan uses the same modifiers, and once achieved requires countermeasures use to break. Without Target/Lockon, firing on the targetted ship will be with a -4 penalty.

Target/Scan achievement allows rolls to gain tactical intelligence, such as ship class type, precise ship size, weapons/jump charging state (based on EP and range), ship attitude/maneuver, batteries bearing, weapons count and type, hull type, maneuver rating, etc. etc.

Tactical Intelligence rolls are during tactical phase in order of priority per query per sensor operator, after the first failed roll no more rolls may be made in that phase (most captains will ask for what is most important to find out).

Special DMs

Stealth- Small craft and ships can be made stealthy at great cost.

For every -1 DM, the cost of the entire ship is added on. So a -2 Stealth ship costs 3x it's non-stealthed version, -4 is 5x, etc.

The DM applies whether the ship is Active, Passive or Silent. The full Tracking range detection of active stealth ships still counts.

Every time the ship is repaired after damage or modified, the full extra cost must be paid again to reestablish it's stealth capabilities. So a -4 stealth ship will require 4x entire ship cost paid after repair costs are incurred.

In general, stealth is used for special ops, insertion small craft, and critical recon missions, and is far too expensive to maintain or use as main force components.

Detecting Array-

Ships may use a TARGETLINK program and comms to increase their detection capability. Add up all the ships' tonnage in a TARGETLINK group use that as the total tonnage modifier. However, the whole group of ships rolls as a group, using the skill modifier of the group's lead ship crewman, and therefore may fail to detect/target/lock as a group.

So 3 400 ton patrol craft would each roll with a -1 DM separately, or could form a TARGETLINK program and be considered equivalent to a 1200 ton ship, therefore receiving one roll at a 0 DM.

If a TARGETLINK group drops below it's total array threshold due to damage or decision, each ship has to reroll it's targets or under a new TARGETLINK group. Detection/tracking range advantages may also be lost.

Countermeasures- A ship may use a countermeasures loadout to attempt a lockon break.

Countermeasures are launched by sandcasters and contain a multi-spectrum series of spoofing tools to increase the area that the ship appears to be in. Think space chaffroc. The intent is to generate misses by weapons that are firing at a bogus target point anywhere from 100m to 10km of the ship's actual location.

The ship must not maneuver, use agility, comms in LOS, or weapons. If it does the countermeasures effect is neutralized.

Once these conditions are met, a new roll must be made to maintain the lockon, with the countermeasures DM applied. If the lockon fails, the -4 to hit DM applies. A new roll can be attempted per tactical phase as per normal.

Countermeasures degrade rapidly, halving their factors every 600 seconds.

 

[mike wightman]

Interesting, very interesting.
Here is what I came up with years ago - based on a hybrid of HG, LBB2 and Star Cruiser:
Assume military sensors are TL15, model 9, while civilian sensors are TL8, model 1. Add the two numbers together.
8+1=9 which = range of 0.5 light seconds
15+9=24 which = range of 2.0 light seconds

Therefore add 0.1 light seconds range per TL above 8 or per model above 1.

Sensor model is equal to computer model.

The ranges above are for active scans. Passive scans have a quarter of the above range.

Ships have a passive (radiated) signature equal to half of the power plant number (round down) or the maneuver rating used during that turn. Planetoid hulls reduce the radiated signature due to the power plant by 1; buffered planetoids reduce it by 2. This reduction is not applied to the signature due to maneuvering.

The ship's passive signature is multiplied by 0.25 light seconds and subtracted from its range to decide if it is within the sensor range of a scanning vessel.
e.g. a ship with a passive signature of +3 is detected if it moves to within 1.25 light seconds of a ship with military sensors (TL15, model 9).

Ships have a reflected signature based on hull size and configuration USP:
< 100t, -1
100t-999t, +0
1000t+, +1
5000t+, +2
USP
1-3, +0
4-6, +1
7-9, +2
The ship's reflected signature is multiplied by 0.25 light seconds and subtracted from its range to decide if it is within the active sensor range of a scanning vessel.
E.g. a ship with a reflected signature of +1 is detected if it moves to within 2.25 light seconds of a ship with military sensors (TL15, model 9).

Once a ship has been detected it can be tracked out to 3 light seconds, but once it moves beyond the sensor's auto spot range (modified by target signature) then a roll of 8 or more on 2d is required to maintain the target lock.
DMs:
+ signature for the sensor type
+ gunnery skill (or navigation -1)
- 1 per 0.25 light seconds outside auto spot range.

Notes:
these rules are based on the Traveller 2300 game Star Cruiser.
If you want to play cat and mouse then I would recommend changing the scale of LBB2 combat to 30cm = 1 light second, it fits better on a table top
1 G maneuver changes vector by 1cm.
laser to hit range modifiers become:
25cm+, -2
50cm+, -5
75cm+, -8

 

[mike wightman]

and part 2
Active sensor jamming
A ship inside the active sensor range of an opponent may try to fool his active scans by running the ECM program. This actually consists of broadcasting false returns etc. using their own active sensor.

The attacking ship has to roll 12+ to obtain a sensor lock.
DMs:
+ 1 per level of gunnery skill (or navigation -1)
+ targets reflected signature
+/- 1 per relative TL
+/- 1 per relative computer model

If the attacking ship runs its own ECM program in ECCM mode then it gains a bonus of +4 to the roll to obtain a sensor lock.

Sensor Drones
A sensor drone is a specially modified missile with its warhead removed (or downgraded) and an active/passive sensor system installed. It maneuvers the same as a normal missile.
The drone’s sensors have half the range of the equivalent ship mounted sensors, and the drone can only go active a limited number of times depending on TL. The TL also determines the maximum model of sensor that can be installed. If the drone does not use its maneuver drive it may deploy a folding array to increase its sensor range to the same as that of an equivalent ship mounted system.
Number of active scans equals TL/3 round down.
Maximum sensor model equals TL/5 round down.

Sensor Decoy Drones
These are missiles that are modified to exactly mimic the passive and reflective signatures of the launching ship.
Their warhead is removed and replaced with extendable radiator panels and vanes that are designed to radiate the same heat signature and provide the same target profile as the reflected signature of the launching ship.

Once launched the drone(s) and the ship should be replaced with identical counters. Each then maneuvers separately and provides a problem for the attacking ship.
To identify a bogey as a drone or the ship roll 10+ on 2d.
DMs:
+/- 1 per relative TL
+ 1 per level of gunnery skill (or navigation -1)

Alternatively, just shoot them all ; the decoy can only take one hit.

Area Jammer Drone
this is a missile modified to transmit as much white noise as possible to confuse active sensors. If the line of sight to a target passes within 0.1 light seconds of the drone then the active ship must roll to penetrate ECM as for active jamming, above.
If the target ship is also using ECM jamming then the active ship must make two roles to obtain a target lock.