Ship design/Space combat - pros and con with the different rules sets

[anders lager]

So, I've got CT bk2, CT HG, MT, TNE, TNE: Brilliant Lances and T4 QSDS/SSDS.

Can anyone elaborate on the pros and cons with these different systems?

/doc.

 

[Zparkz]

As I only have real experience with the TNE: Brilliant lances I can only give you a short run down of this one.

Pros:
Very good for roleplaying as the details level is quite high.
It can be scaled all the way up to the gigantic starships.
Even for the detail of the rules, it flows quite fast for small unit engagements.
When roleplaying is at the center, you can easily overlook rules that seems strange for the given setting.
True vector movement
Heading and facing really matters.

Cons:
Not very suitable for more than a few starships a side or else the battle will never be finished.
Even for the possibility to pit small ships against juggernauts, it is not very wise as it would be a chore to record damage on something larger than a few thousand tons.
Steap learning curve. Takes a few games to learn it well enough to use it in roleplaying sessions.

In my experience BL are best for small engagements or for roleplaying engagements. Fleet operations should be played with Battle Rider. As the ship details are quite high it visualized the starship better for a group of players, and during a battle the players will be challenged to make decisions on how to distribute power and so on. The character skills are important to succeed in an engagement.
From the TNE rulebook the starship combat can be played out pretty abstract without a hex map, however as the rules takes into account that the starships has vector movement it can be quite hard to keep proper track of everything.

 

[robject]

So, I've got CT bk2, CT HG, MT, TNE, TNE: Brilliant Lances and T4 QSDS/SSDS.

Can anyone elaborate on the pros and cons with these different systems?

/doc.

Book2 is easy and has interesting volume-based tradeoffs, but too simple to describe much more than PC's starships.

High Guard has enough oomf to describe all of Traveller's starships, but is relatively cookie-cutter formulaic. It's a tradeoff.

MT extends Striker to starship design. A fun wealth of options, but too much geared towards vehicle design. A tad ponderous -- perhaps due to its plethora of options.

TNE goes the extra mile and gives you a formula for designing things which you use to design starships. The formulae are more complex and the process is no task for the timid. Experience is the only true teacher.

BL: no knowledge.

QSDS and SSDS are attempts by detail-lovers to create a system they think will be used by non-detail-lovers: proofs that you should only really create what you yourself would use and love.

 

[aramis]

So, I've got CT bk2, CT HG, MT, TNE, TNE: Brilliant Lances and T4 QSDS/SSDS.

Can anyone elaborate on the pros and cons with these different systems?

/doc.

Bk 2:
Pro: fast, simple, elegant, supports minis play well
Cons: Only covers ships to 5000 Td, and only using letter drives. Takes lots of table/floor space. Bogs down with lots of ships.
Design Axises: Displacement tonnage, Price
Damage model: progressive loss of capability due to system attrition
Compatibility: limited. Mayday is same base system on hex grids. Requirs extensive convrsions of ships from newer systems to be used. Forward compatibility with HG.

Bk 5:
Pros: Fast, handles large fleets. Semi-abstract. Simple ship design system with formulaic drives.
Cons: No movement rules for tactical movement. semi-cumulative damage
Design Axises: Displacement tonnage, Price, Power
Damage model: semi-cumulative function loss. (sub-threshold damage does not accumulate, but lost function does)
Compatibility: Bk2 ships can be used with no changes by figuring out ratings. Bi-directional compatibility with MT ships (all the data is there for MT ships in Bk5 use; only a couple need be figured to use HG ships in MT).

MT:
Pros: compatible with HG, handles large fleets.
Cons: movement is non-newtonian. Semi-cumulative damage. Ship design very fiddley
Design Axises: Displacement tonnage, Price, Power, Mass
Damage model: semi-cumulative function loss. (sub-threshold damage does not accumulate, but lost function does)
Compatibility: Bk2 ships can be used with no changes by figuring out ratings. Bi-directional compatibility with MT ships (all the data is there for MT ships in Bk5 use; only a couple need be figured to use HG ships in MT).
Note: Official ship combat system is essentially a variant of Bk5. However, the vehicular combat rules allow using the same ship in a very different, and cumulative damage model, combat system.

TNE/TNE BL:
Pros: rather realistic feel. Can build weapons and ships.
Cons: realism is a veneer over some very unrealistic assumptions. Even more detailed ship design system than MT. Limited weapons list. Grav focussed lasers, Det-laser missiles. More fiddly than MT
Design Axises: Displacement tonnage, Price, Power, Mass, surface area
Damage model: cumulative damage to systems with function thresholds.
Compatibility: Forward with T4 since both use same design system. Ratings and designs incompatible with prior systems.
Note: BL is simply a subset of the FF&S rules and a superset of the TNE Core Combat system on a grid.

T4
Design system is subset of a superset of TNE.
Design Axises: Displacement tonnage, Price, Power, Mass, surface area
Loads of different subset design systems: QSDS, SSDS, FF&S2, FF&S1...

 

[Icosahedron]

Anyone care to add Power Projection Escort/Fleet into the mix? I've yet to settle on a ship combat system myself, and these two are also possibilities for me.

 

[jec10]

And do any handle interface combat well (i.e. aerospace)? Not in my experience. Would be the holy grail if someone could crack it.

 

[Zparkz]

Far as I know, all editions of Traveller space combat has too large scale to involve interface combat at any level.

 

[Golan2072]

And do any handle interface combat well (i.e. aerospace)? Not in my experience. Would be the holy grail if someone could crack it.

CT-LBB1 has a very abstract system for this on p.21 under the description of the Air/Raft skill. CT-Striker allows for ships to be integrated into planetary combat, but does so in a somewhat cumbersome way, and small craft designed as CT-Striker gravitic vehicles aren't compatible with CT-LBB2 or CT-HG designs. And ct-striker is focused on ground combat anyway so air combat isn't its forte.

Anyhow, CT-LBB2 is a very elegant design system, focused on the PC level of things, and is very easy to use, but it is marred by a limited range of options available (though you could add more easily) and cumbersome vector-movement in combat. CT-HG allows for far more variation and could handle anything from 1 to 1,000,000 dtons, but is a bit less elegant (requires more calculations in design) and is focused on combat between big battleships rather than on PC-scale ships.

 

[The Oz]

Anyone care to add Power Projection Escort/Fleet into the mix? I've yet to settle on a ship combat system myself, and these two are also possibilities for me.

These games are not designed for use as RPG combat systems, although they could be adapted (with a pretty fair amount of work).

They are squadron/fleet level games, and do that very well.

 

[Supplement Four]

So, I've got CT bk2, CT HG, MT, TNE, TNE: Brilliant Lances and T4 QSDS/SSDS.

Can anyone elaborate on the pros and cons with these different systems?

There are really two different versions of Book 2 Space Combat. There's that which is printed in LBB2 and the Traveller Book, and then there's the version that is printed in Starter Traveller.

Starter Traveller discards the rulers, protractors, and milimeter movement, replacing it with simpler, easier Range Band movement.

I recommend the Range Band movement version.

For a focus on role playing, there's no Traveller ship-to-ship combat system better than the Starter Traveller version. You don't need a hex map or a game space. The GM can keep track of range with a single piece of lined notebook paper.

This is how I run space combats when gaming. I won't put a map on the gaming surface in front of everybody. Instead, I'll lay out the ship deckplans, focussing the action inside the ship--from the characters' perspective. I'll keep track of range in my GM's notebook, where it's handy is anybody asks. Then, I run space combat just like you would a gun fight in a warehouse. I'll describe what happens from the point of view of the characters inside the ship. Sometimes, we'll pause the space combat (since a turn is over 15 minutes long) and switch into regular role playing as the engineer fights an interior fire damage control (or the like).

If the bridge crewers ask for a bearing, I'll look at the Range Band movement in my GM's book and then describe to them the blip on their control panel (enemy ships are 99.99% of the time out of visual range anyway) and the read out that says how far away the enemy is.

This is a fantastic way to run Traveller ship-to-ship combat.




If you want a more traditional method, there's Mayday, which is basically Book 2 combat on a hex board with longer ranges. And, I think High Guard is best for large, capital ship actions or when fleets are engaged.

 

[aramis]

The vehicle combat rules from MT, expanded by including mayday movement for ships, handles interface moderately well. Better than any of the others, at least...

 

[Perseus]

For a focus on role playing, there's no Traveller ship-to-ship combat system better than the Starter Traveller version. You don't need a hex map or a game space. The GM can keep track of range with a single piece of lined notebook paper.

This is how I run space combats when gaming. I won't put a map on the gaming surface in front of everybody. Instead, I'll lay out the ship deckplans, focussing the action inside the ship--from the characters' perspective. I'll keep track of range in my GM's notebook, where it's handy is anybody asks. Then, I run space combat just like you would a gun fight in a warehouse. I'll describe what happens from the point of view of the characters inside the ship. Sometimes, we'll pause the space combat (since a turn is over 15 minutes long) and switch into regular role playing as the engineer fights an interior fire damage control (or the like).

If the bridge crewers ask for a bearing, I'll look at the Range Band movement in my GM's book and then describe to them the blip on their control panel (enemy ships are 99.99% of the time out of visual range anyway) and the read out that says how far away the enemy is.

This is a fantastic way to run Traveller ship-to-ship combat.

That is pretty much exactly how we've always done it. It can be a little abstract at times (where is the enemy?) but with decent description and imagination, it's the best way I've found to interface the RPG bits (fighting fires etc) and decision making with the overall battle.

 

[aramis]

That is pretty much exactly how we've always done it. It can be a little abstract at times (where is the enemy?) but with decent description and imagination, it's the best way I've found to interface the RPG bits (fighting fires etc) and decision making with the overall battle.

For my group, Mongoose Traveller's combat system, with mayday movement grafted on, and power production set to 1 per letter, MD draw to 1 per letter, and JD draw to 5 per letter, was the best RP space combat any of us ever had. By using counters on map, they knew the tacticals, and because of the direct role of PC's, they were, in fact, directly involved.

As written, it was mediocre... due to the power issue... but the fix was easy and obvious. (and submitted right off to Gareth.)

Then again, my playtest group included 4 SFB players, three B5W players (only two of whom are SFB players), and all of us are into board games in general. Two of us qualified as Grognards, too, and a third comes right close. And 4 of us have enjoyed Gorilla Games' Battlestations, which has much the same feel.

So, for us, it was a really good fit.

 

[Supplement Four]

It can be a little abstract at times (where is the enemy?)

With Range Band movement, I don't find it abstract at all. On a 2-D surface, such as a hex board, all that really matters with Book 2 combat is distance, if you think about it. There are no "facing" rules. So, all you need to know is the distance to the target. Range Bands provides that for you.

Plus, one added benefit of Range Band movement is that the combat can be played out in 3-D (instead of the usual 2-D when on a map). You've got distance marked with Range Bands. All the GM has to do is remember relative bearing.

On a 2-D map, relative bearing is reported in bow/port/starboard/aft directions. With Range Band movement, the GM can add dorsal and ventral bearings too.

The Range Band movement takes Book 2 from a wargame (starships jockeying around on a map) to a role playing experience as the GM focuses the players' attention on what their characters are experiencing inside the ship.

Think of those old WWII submarine movies where the camera stayed with the crew inside the sub, only peeking at the enemy when it can be seen in the periscope. This is exactly how LBB2 with Range Band movement can be played, with the characters sitting at their stations, operating the controls, the gun, or even running around the ship doing patching that hole that was just blasted in the hull.

Creative GMs have fun with this. You run the space combat, but the last hull breach has compromised hull integrity. Some body's got to go EVA and patch the hull from the outside! So, the engineer is out there, EVA, magnetic boots clanking on the hull, while incoming fire streams over his head. Gawd forbid if the enemy launches a missile!

Leads to some hairy games.

 

[robject]

For my group, Mongoose Traveller's combat system, with mayday movement grafted on, and power production set to 1 per letter, MD draw to 1 per letter, and JD draw to 5 per letter, was the best RP space combat any of us ever had. By using counters on map, they knew the tacticals, and because of the direct role of PC's, they were, in fact, directly involved.

This sounds pretty slick. I'll be grafting those house rules into my copy of MGT.

 

[anders lager]

Thanks everyone, Starter Traveller emphasizing role-playing seem very interesting since I'm mostly into role-playing, not fleet tactics.

BTW, has anyone tried the "Role-playing space combat system" (originally designed for T4 I think)...

/doc.

 

[Perseus]

"But what I really meant was..."

... So, all you need to know is the distance to the target. Range Bands provides that for you....

...Think of those old WWII submarine movies where the camera stayed with the crew inside the sub, only peeking at the enemy when it can be seen in the periscope. This is exactly how LBB2 with Range Band movement can be played, with the characters sitting at their stations, operating the controls, the gun, or even running around the ship doing patching that hole that was just blasted in the hull.

Leads to some hairy games.

Sorry, maybe i misrepresented what I meant. In most cases the games we played were as described above *except* we didn't use a 2D board, as aramis said, we just used lined paper (if that) and the Gm kept track of the "range bands" or distance. Hence, as you say, facing matters not at all. so yes it is kinda like hitting out and striking, connecting, but not having much visual representation of what is going on. Thus, it seems a little "abstract", that's all. I'd use counters or minis and a 2D map to give it more flavour, when I get a bit more set up.

In fact to a similar end I was building some minis out of card and balsa, for use with just thsi sort of scenario in mind. You can see some of them here. http://members.optusnet.com.au/tau.ceti/Terrain/Space.htm This is about 2 years old now. I've done a few more things since this page was updated, but don't have easy access to a camera to post them. Thinking about a bigger orbital stn next.

But you are dead right, It does lead to some hairy games.

 

[aramis]

This sounds pretty slick. I'll be grafting those house rules into my copy of MGT.

Well, considering we put those suggestions to Gareth in the playtest feedback, both early and often... I'm seriously hopin you won't have to graft them on...

 

[Merxiless]

I've always been a fan of the original vector movement system, just for the detail.

As the game moved away from that, it seemed to lose a lot of the original gritty flavor for me.

But I'll grant that High Guard was good for massive fleet battles a la Star Wars.

 

[GypsyComet]

I've always been a fan of the original vector movement system, just for the detail.

As the game moved away from that, it seemed to lose a lot of the original gritty flavor for me.

But I'll grant that High Guard was good for massive fleet battles a la Star Wars.

High Guard does indeed do fleet resolutions well. It isn't an RP combat engine to speak of.

By extension, MT's combat mechanics are misplaced as an RP system, though I do like some of the extents the construction system went to.

LBB2 is a good nail-biter of an RP system, and has a finer resolution ship system damage scale than many people realize if the ship is even a little bigger than the usual.

TNE's design stuff (BL and FF&S1) is pretty good, but the combat is geared to duels as strongly as HG is to fleets. This can be a good thing for RP, and you could do worse than look at some of what TNE offers even if you end up using another set as base.

T4 was never properly completed. I like QSDS/SSDS, but that version of FF&S was a mess, and there wasn't a good system to actually *use* the designs.

QSDS and SSDS are attempts by detail-lovers to create a system they think will be used by non-detail-lovers: proofs that you should only really create what you yourself would use and love.

More proof that such things should be done in the right order, and with a *little* more time to think about design goals. QSDS was literally whipped up in a week or two.