CT Only: Ship Damage Drama System- Making Space Hurt

[kilemall]

yeah, but THAT gets REAL hairy. I've been operating my game with the assumption that a ship has (maneuver + agility) equal to its m rating - meaning that an m2 ship can change vector by 2, or it can change vector by 1 and be exercising agility 1 (-1 to hit) or it can forego all vector change and exercise agility 2 (-2 to hit). in working out my games the seemingly best approach is to lay on vector towards the target, then go to full agility to avoid hits, meaning both targets can drift right past each other. a side benefit is that this allows a sand-using ship to take full advantage of its sand, rather than running away from it trying to "maneuver" (out in space there's only two places to go - planet-side and jump point - and it's safer to drift there jinking than to run for it while presenting a more steady target).

That's one potential thing to do, except that at least one side is likely to be 'laser/beam superior' and wish to forego the negatives of firing through their own sand cloud, perhaps going into the agility dance to avoid hits but still firing away.

After a few runs through I expect I will end up with a sand dispersion/ablation rule.

Remember my goal is to integrate HG into individual CT ship-like combat, and one of the smaller ship armaments is the plasma/fusion guns, which are less affected by sand. Those are likely to put a crimp in the sanddancer style.

 

[kilemall]

ooof. +-1 in 2d6 is a lot, especially in the 10-12 to-hit range, and aspect presentation can vary a great deal.

Yes, but fudging hit location tables is not how to deal with it.

the biggest problem encountered in vector space combat is the huge distances that can be traversed. a simple m2 scout can cross 4ls in 18 turns. even if using agility if it has laid on vector then it can coast 4ls in 24 turns. the sheer distance involved means if you reduce combat range, then seldom will anything happen at all. "hey, that ship is pulling towards me instead of towards the planet, gee, I wonder why?" they'll know why, and they'll pull away. the second biggest problem is that combat then consists entirely of missile duels - missiles maneuver faster than ships, they have to, yes? - and at the distances they will be deployed and given the turn duration you have selected (100 seconds) they will have to be launched early and will require many turns to even begin to engage their targets.

Well part of the starship combat art will be to have the right vee against the right target at the right place and time. Gets trickier if you want to board or at least hit their cargo hold for a 'loot pinata' run.

The 'hey they are on an intercept vector let's get the hell out of dodge' thing is just spaceships in general, there is always an inferior force decline combat aspect and having to entice, fool or create a situation of no choice to have it.

There is just no reason for anyone to get within 100,000 km of each other normally, so I have the detection/tracking software alarm if anyone is on course to do that, and of course starport and LE/military apprised of the situation will immediately assume hostile intent as well.

I think it best for the attacker to have a 2G advantage, minimum. Course that makes them easier to hit since they aren't using agility.

The 1000 second turn is still there for gross movement, jumps etc. but the 100 second ones are for firing, repairing, what orientation the ship is at at the moment, etc. It's to cycle the game more rapidly through each crew station and have something to do for them all.

So yes they can launch the missile first thing, but there will be plenty of other nail biting things they will be dealing with.

Remember, if you and your opponent have civilian sensors and weren't bleating transponders, you didn't spot each other until 150,000km so it's even more exciting and cutthroat to start engaging especially at unplanned for vees.

 

[flykiller]

Yes, but fudging hit location tables is not how to deal with it.

au contraire. it is not fudging, it is utilizing. it allows objective implementation of aspect orientation to the hit determination process, rather than subjectively adding -1 or -2 to an already overstrained 2d6 system.

there is always an inferior force decline combat aspect

actually, in running vector scenarios, I find that the "decline combat" option is unavailable for many turns, and then only if the target 1) presents a more vulnerable aspect and 2) declines agility bonus in favor of maneuver. if the target needs to run anyway it can take the risk, but it's quite a risk.

There is just no reason for anyone to get within 100,000 km of each other normally

sure there is, when approaching a planet. scout jumps in with vector 5 towards the planet, hey, there's a merchantman nearby, he's not moving he's just waiting, the scout tries to save time by accelerating towards the planet ... that 100kkm range gets breached real fast, and with vector it stays breached until drift-through ....

but the 100 second ones are for firing, repairing, what orientation the ship is at at the moment, etc. It's to cycle the game more rapidly through each crew station and have something to do for them all.

sounds great, really, but then there's that distance thing. if the target is in range at all you'll get off one or two dozen shots before it can maneuver away, let alone drift by. that's a lot of action and a lot of hits, and a bit rough on pc's.

you didn't spot each other until 150,000km

well I'm kind of in the "no hiding in space" camp. I ameliorate it by saying you can see them, but past your sensor ranges you can't target lasers or steer missiles, and even within that you can't shoot past your weapons factor level (modified by gunner skill of course). of course model 4 sensor suites can cover the entire 100d limit of a size 8 planet, so it's really not an issue, least not for what I'm doing right now ....

 

[flykiller]

except that at least one side is likely to be 'laser/beam superior'

that's a very good point. I found that the scout did very well hiding behind its sand while the missile transited out to the q-ship, while the q-ship just blasted away at the scout trying to hit it except when it was shooting at the incoming missile. the primary reason that worked at all was because the scout laser was factor 1 limiting its range while the q-ship laser was factor 4, so the scout wound up not using its laser at all except when they drifted very close. then the pulse laser actually got a hit.

I'm considering ruling that sand blocks beam lasers, but pulse lasers and missiles just power through sand.

 

[kilemall]

au contraire. it is not fudging, it is utilizing. it allows objective implementation of aspect orientation to the hit determination process, rather than subjectively adding -1 or -2 to an already overstrained 2d6 system.

You'll have to explain that one to me, especially as I am not going to go the extra distance to calculate the exact percentage of exposed facing per hull type relative to the firing ship per shot.

actually, in running vector scenarios, I find that the "decline combat" option is unavailable for many turns, and then only if the target 1) presents a more vulnerable aspect and 2) declines agility bonus in favor of maneuver. if the target needs to run anyway it can take the risk, but it's quite a risk.

Then why did you bring it up as an issue in vector combat?

sure there is, when approaching a planet. scout jumps in with vector 5 towards the planet, hey, there's a merchantman nearby, he's not moving he's just waiting, the scout tries to save time by accelerating towards the planet ... that 100kkm range gets breached real fast, and with vector it stays breached until drift-through ....

And they will watch each other like hawks if it isn't a friendly or A starport scenario.

sounds great, really, but then there's that distance thing. if the target is in range at all you'll get off one or two dozen shots before it can maneuver away, let alone drift by. that's a lot of action and a lot of hits, and a bit rough on pc's.

I didn't really want to get into the whole system, among other things I'm not sure if it would belong here or in IMTU. This is just a run through of the damage system, you're talking about chance to hit and ROF.

I DO intend to make it rough- Space Hurts.

But if they can be hurt, they can also dish it out.

well I'm kind of in the "no hiding in space" camp. I ameliorate it by saying you can see them, but past your sensor ranges you can't target lasers or steer missiles, and even within that you can't shoot past your weapons factor level (modified by gunner skill of course). of course model 4 sensor suites can cover the entire 100d limit of a size 8 planet, so it's really not an issue, least not for what I'm doing right now ....

I'm sticking with the LBB2 ranges because it was all designed with the maneuver rates in mind. I am adding in an additional chance of stealthing- but that requires flying near blind and reactor powered down, with a chance of never getting it powered back up (or at least in time).

 

[kilemall]

Okay, we'll work out a sectional subchart set for a Type S. Plenty to be had, let's stick with ye olde Suleiman in this very nice rendering by our own, which includes the rarely offered side floor view-

 

[aramis]

Kilemal: you've a major snafu in your sulie - the sulie's only 7.5m tall. Given it's 3 decks... (37.5 long, 24 wide, 7.5 tall. Yeah, she's WAY undersized. Unless you make her not a pyramid... digression in spoiler)

Spoiler

a pyramid with a rhombus base overall 24x7.5 and height 37.5. Area of the rhombus is half that of the bounding box, since it's equilateral.
Thus Ab=0.5(24x7.5)=90. V=(1/3)AbH=90*37.5/3=1125.

If we give it a hexagonal back, and make the edge 0.5m thick...
Triangular prism V=24*37.5*0.5=450
rhombic pyramid: 24x7x37.5 V=(0.5(24*7)37.5)/3=1050.
Sum 1500. Lose a few for the cutouts on the tips...

But, per the drawing, the drives extend 0.5m out the back...
so...
Triangular prism V=24*37*0.5=444
rhombic pyramid: 24x7x37 V=(0.5(24*7)37)/3=1036.
total = 1480
Well within Bk2's ±10%.

Your drives and lower cargo are about the right size combined for the drive bay. And, having reverse engineered the plans, it uses a about 2.5m decktop to decktop in the main deck, with engineering being 3m. (This is how one makes it fit the Sup 7 plans to the Bk2 design.)

 

[kilemall]

Yes I read the whole thread that plan came from, I am aware of the issues regarding the floor plan vs. typical height.


More then just an adjust, I'm just going to treat the floorplan as a conceptual relational layout and rely more on the LBB2 system tonnage allocations.

Personally, I prefer a general 1 meter per tile scale, that gives each ton 4.5 tiles to work with and allows for more nuanced facilities for hallways, bridges, staterooms and common areas.

Can you pick a render size where people can see it but it doesn't take over the screen?

 

[kilemall]

BTW how canon is this article? How many of you use this understanding of jumpdrive? If so, why are the jump drives justified in being located in the back engineering section when they should be near the center of the ship, or have field generators located all over?

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Jump_Drive_History

 

[Condottiere]

I tend to think it's pretty much dependant on the game mechanics of the version you're playing and the Dungeon Master's opinion on them.

 

[mike wightman]

BTW how canon is this article? How many of you use this understanding of jumpdrive? If so, why are the jump drives justified in being located in the back engineering section when they should be near the center of the ship, or have field generators located all over?

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Jump_Drive_History

Like most of the stuff on the wiki the majority of the fluff in the article is completely non-canon.

The best canon sources for how the jump drive functions etc. are MWM's jumpspace article and the new stuff in T5.

 

[kilemall]

Like most of the stuff on the wiki the majority of the fluff in the article is completely non-canon.

The best canon sources for how the jump drive functions etc. are MWM's jumpspace article and the new stuff in T5.

Jumpspace article? Where might this be found?

 

[Enoki]

Personally, I'd like to see damage made more "personalized" for lack of a better term. That is, it is something the players can relate and respond to. I prefer games where the players are directly involved. They are front line soldiers rather than generals or admirals.

That is, the "small ship" universe. Sure, huge battleships exist but these are something the players aren't going to get involved in in my games.

 

[flykiller]

I'd like to see damage made more "personalized" for lack of a better term.

is this difficult? this is where engineers should shine. mechanics opening the jammed hatch, electronics techs rigging new power or control lines, engineers restarting equipment that has been knocked off-line, gravitics techs restoring accessibility - roll vs unusual, difficult, or very difficult tasks. medics treating injured personnel may be able to drug them up enough to get them back on the job for a while longer. this is where vacc suit and 0G skills should make a difference - the compartment has been hit by a laser, it's hot, vacc suit skill 1 or greater to enter at all, skill 2 with an endurance modifier to remain long enough to effect some necessary repair, roll vs 0G skill with a dexterity modifier to avoid getting stuck in the red hot metal. in my games I have the skill "damage control" for just these situations.

not hard at all.

Sure, huge battleships exist but these are something the players aren't going to get involved in in my games.

never? they never get picked up or arrested or infiltrate or talk to the local admiral or s2? never? ok, well, how 'bout a space station? the station is damaged, can the players get life support back on-line and live? does anyone have the robotics skill necessary to get the damaged repair bot up and running again? comms are down, does anyone have the comm skill necessary to figure out a work-around and get the message through?

geez, I should get the lewis updated and run a game on it.

 

[whartung]

Jumpspace article? Where might this be found?

JTAS 24

I summarized the salient points here: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=25076

There's no real discussion as to the drive location.

I have not seen T5.

 

[kilemall]

JTAS 24

I summarized the salient points here: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=25076

There's no real discussion as to the drive location.

I have not seen T5.

Hmmm, without going into any of the jump drive issues, that's what I'm wondering, occurs to me while working through the ramifications of this location system that ship designers would want to tuck the jump drive, power plant, bridge and computer in the spinal/internal area whenever possible to allow for the chance for a jump escape as long as possible.

However, if you have to create that jump bubble and a lot of that jump fuel is charged plasma/field of some sort dumping to the outside and/or create that hole to pop into, it would make sense that they need to be somewhere near the exterior.

 

[flykiller]

ship designers would want to tuck the jump drive, power plant, bridge and computer in the spinal/internal area whenever possible

when I do external/internal calcs half the bridge and half or all the weapons must be external. for large warships, between those and j/pp fuel this usually fills all of the "external" space and everything else is internal.

 

[Mako]

For me, I'm looking at something middle of the road in terms of lethality, e.g. not too fast, and not too slow, with the occasional catastrophic hit disabling the vessel completely, and/or destroying it.

For more detailed RPG games, I can see where more options on the types of damage and hits would be useful, e.g. jammed or damaged hatches, electrical systems ko'd, airlock damaged, decompression in the staterooms, bridge door jammed, etc., etc..

For those, I was thinking along similar lines, but you get way beyond the 2D6 level of damage tracking with that, at least in my opinion. More like D100 instead.

I think 11 different options is a bit sparse, in terms of hit locations, unless you are grouping some by class, and then rolling again for more precise info on the results. A D20 is better for that, or again D100, in my opinion, especially for tracking small targets like turrets, computers, etc..

I've been toying with the idea of also making jumping out a little easier, if in a tight spot. Think Han and Chewie, and passengers when fleeing Tatooine.

Perhaps using a graduated level of danger, by distance from the planet, e.g. inversely lessening as you get further away from the gravitational field, say from 100 - 1,000 diameters, instead of the firm 1,000 diameter standard.

Any jumps within 100 diameters or less are assured of a jump mishap.

At 101+ diameters, there's an 81% chance of a mishap (9 squared). At 401 - 500 there's a 36% chance of a mishap (6 squared). At 501 diameters it drops to a 25% chance (5 squared). At 901 - 999 diameters there's a 1% chance of a mishap (1 squared). Finally, at 1,000 diameters, there's no chance of a mishap (unless of course you want there to be, or someone is using unrefined fuel).

Using this system, the pilot can play the odds, and determine if he wants to take a chance on a jump to safety, weighing that against the risk of destruction if he remains at sublight speed against an opponent. He also has to weigh his chances on exactly when to jump, since moving further out significantly reduces the chance for a misjump.

I'm also toying with other misjump options, results, than the standard ones, but I'll put that in another posting, e.g. navigation system fails to permit the jump, jump engine damage from not spooling the system up properly, micro-jump, etc., etc., making it less likely for the vessel that misjumps to be able to exit the system, and get away safely, so perhaps falling prey to the pursuers.

 

[kilemall]

when I do external/internal calcs half the bridge and half or all the weapons must be external. for large warships, between those and j/pp fuel this usually fills all of the "external" space and everything else is internal.

I'm leaning towards requiring a 'conning' station for at least piloting near worlds, stations, definitely streamlined landing procedures, etc. but putting your whole CIC, jump, security and avionics on the bow that says 'shoot me please and disable the whole ship'- not a chance.

For the most part, everyone on a bridge except the pilot is looking at a screen not through the windows.

The only internal weapons I'd have are the spinal mounts and possibly launch tubes, and those would have exits, the mounts to the front and the tubes at whatever direction they go in.

Although, the LoGH fighter launch system seems most reasonable to me of any I have run across.

 

[kilemall]

I think 11 different options is a bit sparse, in terms of hit locations, unless you are grouping some by class, and then rolling again for more precise info on the results. A D20 is better for that, or again D100, in my opinion, especially for tracking small targets like turrets, computers, etc..

It's 2d6 for major sections, then 2d6 for the actual system/facility hit within that section, then check to see whether there are more damage rolls within the section or onto the next and roll those until I run out of damage tons the hit generated.

I'm not looking to get into Phoenix Command levels of precise resolution or even Seekrieg big random tables, mostly out to get to a hook and visualization onto describing what happened, who got hurt, and what heroic battle repair will be needed to get going again.