Ship combat: long and bloody?

[Putraack]

My group is now into the 2nd adventure of "Pirates of Drinax" and they (perhaps foolishly) tried to take a Gazelle-class escort head-on. The combat that followed tied up quite a lot of the game session, and resulted in both ships battered to pieces. The Gazelle lost all of its Structure first, so the players got away with their own ship, but nothing else.

My question: is it other GM's experience that ship fights drag on for 12+ rounds? The Gazelle actually ran out of missiles near the end.

 

[pendragonman]

Missiles are almost worthless. Torps big guy. Torps.

 

[Timerover51]

My group is now into the 2nd adventure of "Pirates of Drinax" and they (perhaps foolishly) tried to take a Gazelle-class escort head-on. The combat that followed tied up quite a lot of the game session, and resulted in both ships battered to pieces. The Gazelle lost all of its Structure first, so the players got away with their own ship, but nothing else.

My question: is it other GM's experience that ship fights drag on for 12+ rounds? The Gazelle actually ran out of missiles near the end.

Space and star ship combat should be short and deadly like aerial combat. Wet navy surface ship combat should be the one that can drag out, not space combat.

 

[pendragonman]

My group is now into the 2nd adventure of "Pirates of Drinax" and they (perhaps foolishly) tried to take a Gazelle-class escort head-on. The combat that followed tied up quite a lot of the game session, and resulted in both ships battered to pieces. The Gazelle lost all of its Structure first, so the players got away with their own ship, but nothing else.

My question: is it other GM's experience that ship fights drag on for 12+ rounds? The Gazelle actually ran out of missiles near the end.

Also, I have to ask. Was that a Gazelle out of the Core book? A traditional (all previous versions of Trav) Gazelle has two triple beam laser turrets and two particle accelerator barbettes, no missiles at all. The core book one is seriously undergunned.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Space and star ship combat should be short and deadly like aerial combat. Wet navy surface ship combat should be the one that can drag out, not space combat.

I am confused as to if this is just personal thoughts or actual GM or player experience with the ship combat rules?

 

[mike wightman]

Modern wt navy combat between same TL forces is probably going to be short and bloody too.

If your missiles outnumber their anti missile defences and get through countermeasures then its probably one hit one kill.

This is another one of those "I really don't want to find out the real answer"...

 

[Putraack]

Yes, core book Gazelle: 2 sandcasters, 2 beam lasers, 4 missile launchers. The PCs' ship often took a pair of Dodge reactions, so the smart missiles couldn't hit easily. There was often a cloud of 6-10 missiles following the PCs' ship around. Undergunned it may be, but it was all the PCs could handle!

I don't have any torpedoes in my core book, so I can't use those ATM.

We commented that there was a lot of die-rolling on both sides of the table, there were Dodges and sandcasters and point-defense shots and so on.

I suspect a difference between this fight and previous ones may be that both ships were armored this time-- that sucks a lot of damage out of things-- and the NPCs had sandcasters.

Some rules questions:
- Am I correct in understanding that if a turret has different weapons, those could be used on different targets in the same round, but at a -1 (multiaction) penalty? Such as the sandcaster/beam laser turret above, or the PCs' ship having a laser used for point defense and a particle beam shot at the NPC ship?

- If the NPC ship has an Evade program, those -1 drms count as Reactions, and take up Thrust? Could the pilot add more Dodge reactions?

- A ship's Pilot/co-pilot can both Dodge and Line Up a Shot in the same round? Perhaps with a penalty for multiple actions?

 

[Timerover51]

I am confused as to if this is just personal thoughts or actual GM or player experience with the ship combat rules?

I probably should not have posted the comment in the Mongoose thread, as the only space ship combat I have done is with Classic Traveller, and with the unarmored ship hulls, along with my modifications of damage rules to bring damage in line with real world damage data that I have for ships, aircraft, buildings, tanks, and assorted other targets. I also add in the pressure damage from the conversion of large quantities of liquid Hydrogen into gas, typically ripping out massive sections of hull plating. For large scale combat, I simply break out my Imperium game and have at it, or sometimes as an alternate, I used Warp War.

I will refrain from any further comments on ship damage in the Mongoose thread.

 

[pendragonman]

Yes, core book Gazelle: 2 sandcasters, 2 beam lasers, 4 missile launchers. The PCs' ship often took a pair of Dodge reactions, so the smart missiles couldn't hit easily. There was often a cloud of 6-10 missiles following the PCs' ship around. Undergunned it may be, but it was all the PCs could handle!

I don't have any torpedoes in my core book, so I can't use those ATM.

We commented that there was a lot of die-rolling on both sides of the table, there were Dodges and sandcasters and point-defense shots and so on.

I suspect a difference between this fight and previous ones may be that both ships were armored this time-- that sucks a lot of damage out of things-- and the NPCs had sandcasters.

Some rules questions:
- Am I correct in understanding that if a turret has different weapons, those could be used on different targets in the same round, but at a -1 (multiaction) penalty? Such as the sandcaster/beam laser turret above, or the PCs' ship having a laser used for point defense and a particle beam shot at the NPC ship?

- If the NPC ship has an Evade program, those -1 drms count as Reactions, and take up Thrust? Could the pilot add more Dodge reactions?

- A ship's Pilot/co-pilot can both Dodge and Line Up a Shot in the same round? Perhaps with a penalty for multiple actions?

Ahhh. I see. Well, if you like ship design and space combat, I can recommend High Guard.

 

[robject]

Space and star ship combat should be short and deadly like aerial combat.

Though I tend to view Traveller starships as more navy-like and less aerial otherwise, I do agree with the above.

 

[Vargas]

It can be a tough choice whether to make starship combat more like modern air combat or first half of the 20th century naval combat. (I swerve back and forth on that).

 

[Timerover51]

It can be a tough choice whether to make starship combat more like modern air combat or first half of the 20th century naval combat. (I swerve back and forth on that).

As this quote concerns naval combat during the 20th Century, I think that I can safely respond to it. Naval combat during that period could be a long, drawn-out, slugging match, with ships absorbing a large amount of damage before sinking. However, it could also be extremely brief and highly devastating, as in some of the night action near Guadalcanal in 1942, the British battlecruisers along with the armored cruisers Defense and Black Prince at Jutland, the French battleship Bouvet at the Dardanelles, HMS Hood in the initial action with the Bismarck, the Italian battleship Roma, the list can be very long. The naval action off of Guadalcanal on November the 13th, 1942 (appropriately enough a Friday), which left two American Admirals dead, is a very good example of a shatteringly brief night action.

 

[Vargas]

Naval combat during that period could be a long, drawn-out, slugging match, with ships absorbing a large amount of damage before sinking. However, it could also be extremely brief and highly devastating . . .

Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply it had to be one way or the other, sorry if it came off that way.

 

[Shonner]

My question: is it other GM's experience that ship fights drag on for 12+ rounds? The Gazelle actually ran out of missiles near the end.

I don't use combat rounds, or initiative. Combat doesn't drag then, whether on ground or in space.

 

[Vladika]

In a classic HG2 battle, it can go on forever. Literally no end in sight. As long as you have hordes of defensible missile ships in the line and the ability to repair in the reserve, on and on it can go.

In that situation, either side can send for reserves, and receive them, before a battle is anywhere near conclusion.

Even if missiles required accountability, you could rearm while in the reserve from ammo and supply ships.

The fewer ships available to each side, the less this will occur. At TL15, TCS, you can really drag it out though.

 

[McPerth]

Yes, core book Gazelle: 2 sandcasters, 2 beam lasers, 4 missile launchers. The PCs' ship often took a pair of Dodge reactions, so the smart missiles couldn't hit easily. There was often a cloud of 6-10 missiles following the PCs' ship around. Undergunned it may be, but it was all the PCs could handle!

Now try to arm the Gazelle as it was in CT (2 particle Beams and 2 triple BLaser turrets) and see if the combat lasts as long...

In a classic HG2 battle, it can go on forever. Literally no end in sight. As long as you have hordes of defensible missile ships in the line and the ability to repair in the reserve, on and on it can go.

A combat in HG2 among 2 Gazelles would also last for a while. With their beam lasers and PAs having a +9 on damage tables (+6 for being 9-, +3 for armor), the only results that they could achieve would be weapon damage, fuel damage and computer (in the PAs' radiation table). The first one to unarm its enemy will win (as sooner or latter it will leave its enemy without fuel or computer), but it will take a while.

Aut the possibility to be both left unarmed the same round is not negligible...

 

[McPerth]

As this quote concerns naval combat during the 20th Century, I think that I can safely respond to it. Naval combat during that period could be a long, drawn-out, slugging match, with ships absorbing a large amount of damage before sinking. However, it could also be extremely brief and highly devastating, as in some of the night action near Guadalcanal in 1942, the British battlecruisers along with the armored cruisers Defense and Black Prince at Jutland, the French battleship Bouvet at the Dardanelles, HMS Hood in the initial action with the Bismarck, the Italian battleship Roma, the list can be very long. The naval action off of Guadalcanal on November the 13th, 1942 (appropriately enough a Friday), which left two American Admirals dead, is a very good example of a shatteringly brief night action.

IIRC most of the actions that were so swift and deadly (the sinking of the Hood being a good exception) were due to air power, while most purely naval engagements were on the first cathegory you said ( long, drawn-out, slugging match, with ships absorbing a large amount of damage before sinking), as the Rio de la Plata engagement in 1939 or the Batle of Falklands in 1914.

 

[Vladika]

Now try to arm the Gazelle as it was in CT (2 particle Beams and 2 triple BLaser turrets) and see if the combat lasts as long...



A combat in HG2 among 2 Gazelles would also last for a while. With their beam lasers and PAs having a +9 on damage tables (+6 for being 9-, +3 for armor), the only results that they could achieve would be weapon damage, fuel damage and computer (in the PAs' radiation table). The first one to unarm its enemy will win (as sooner or latter it will leave its enemy without fuel or computer), but it will take a while.

Aut the possibility to be both left unarmed the same round is not negligible...

BUT, If you put 500 Gazelles on each side (easy with TCS funds available), drop the cripples into the reserve, repair and return to the line; a forever battle... Either side, or both sides, can send a few scout couriers to bring reinforcements. Unless there is, or becomes, an overwhelming numerical (or power) advantage, it drags on forever. (I've never tried the Gazelles, but, given the +6 DM on the damage table, I'd expect a similar outcome.

Given an missile munchkin at below 2000dt, Armor factor 14, and this battle will never end, UNLESS, differing, and more powerful ships, start destroying munchkins, while returning to the reserve to effect repair. Fire, retreat, repair and repeat.

If you can't, or don't, prevent the enemy from moving ships to the reserve for repair, you can't obtain a decisive outcome in any reasonable amount of time.

As long as the sides are large, relatively equal in numbers, and "escort" types dominate, there will be a continual rotation of ships with few actually destroyed.

Attrition warfare, only in name. Few kills, and a perpetual slug fest. Lot's and lots of repairable damage, either in the reserve, or shipyards. If neither side maneuvers away from the battle it will be akin to trench warfare in space.

 

[Timerover51]

IIRC most of the actions that were so swift and deadly (the sinking of the Hood being a good exception) were due to air power, while most purely naval engagements were on the first cathegory you said ( long, drawn-out, slugging match, with ships absorbing a large amount of damage before sinking), as the Rio de la Plata engagement in 1939 or the Batle of Falklands in 1914.

In the night actions during the Solomons Campaign, no air power was involved at all. At the Battle of Vella Gulf in 1943, a successful US Destroyer ambush sank 3 Japanese destroyers, two by magazine explosions, within roughly ONE minute. The Japanese did not even know the US destroyers were there. Also see the Battle of Cape Matapan, also a night action, where 2 Italian heavy cruisers and two destroyers were either wrecked or sunk within 5 minutes by the British Mediterranean Battle Fleet. Daylight actions could be long or short, depending on the type of ships involved.

You might also want to take a look at the Cap Trafalgar-Carmania action and the Stier-Stephen Hopkins action as to an idea of what happens when two armed merchant ships engage each other.

The IJN Musashi and IJN Yamato battleship sinking were long, drawn-out affairs, especially the Musashi, of aircraft sinking battleships.

 

[Tobias]

It can be a tough choice whether to make starship combat more like modern air combat or first half of the 20th century naval combat. (I swerve back and forth on that).

The problem I see is that Traveller has the following basic assumptions:

a) Ships have acceleration capabilities in the single digit G range.
b) Ships are about the size of modern naval craft, sometimes larger.
c) Many weapons are lasers or other weapons firing at or near C.

And under these assumptions, out of the following...

1.) Meaningful maneuvering.
2.) Short combat rounds.
3.) At least a passing resemblance to realism.

... you can only pick two. Ranges are by any stretch of plausibility very long. So either you need very long combat rounds as well, to allow for ships to cover similar distances or you forgo maneuvering as a game element, which is kinda boring. That's why previous Traveller space combat systems had combat rounds ranging from 16.666 minutes (CT) to 100 minutes (Mayday).