Ship to ship combat paradigm

[Piper]

On the question of scale: what does everyone play on? I use the large hex maps from 2300/BL/BR and use Mayday rules. If most people are using hexes I would think we'd almost have to scale the game in time and distance to allow 1-G thrust to equal 1 hex movement with time and range calculation based on that.
Thoughts?

 

[robject]

I like hexgrids, though I also like unhexed vector movement just fine. I also stick with long combat rounds -- which are probably designed to correspond with hex movement, now that I think about it...

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by robject:
Perhaps updated deckplans for the dozen standard ships, with numbered regions corresponding to hit locations, are in order. Can that kind of thing be engineered to replace damage tables?

While I admire a good deckplan as much as anyone, the thought of having to create one for every design is simply scary.
Some time ago I played around with a system using dtons of ship system as a percentage of total displacement and using those numbers to create a hit table using percentile die. For example: on a 100 ton scout, the bridge would take up slots 1 to 20 on the table.
I think this is similar to TNE/FF&S. Something like this, modified for aspect might be more manageable.
Does TNE allow for raking and blow-thru?

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by robject:
Sigg, what's the rationale for setting combat turns to be so short?

I've not read a book or seen a film that uses the long time scales of the various Traveller ship combat systems. Also it allows weapons ranges to be made somewhat more "realistic".

I don't mind the long turns for the maneuvering before combat, the sub-hunt game if you like, but once battle is joined I want it fast and furious to maintain tension.

This brings with it problems for damage control etc., but that can always be left until after the battle.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Piper:
On the question of scale: what does everyone play on? I use the large hex maps from 2300/BL/BR and use Mayday rules. If most people are using hexes I would think we'd almost have to scale the game in time and distance to allow 1-G thrust to equal 1 hex movement with time and range calculation based on that.
Thoughts?

The very same maps and movement rules, although I am toying with the idea of getting them laminated so I can use plotted vectors like in Triplanetary.

One other thing I allow 1 g turn of thrust to equate to 2 hexes of movement, but only 1 hex is allowed on the turn the thrust is applied. The full vector change is only used in the following turn.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Piper:
While I admire a good deckplan as much as anyone, the thought of having to create one for every design is simply scary.
Some time ago I played around with a system using dtons of ship system as a percentage of total displacement and using those numbers to create a hit table using percentile die. For example: on a 100 ton scout, the bridge would take up slots 1 to 20 on the table.
I think this is similar to TNE/FF&S. Something like this, modified for aspect might be more manageable.
Does TNE allow for raking and blow-thru?

An icon system similar to the way it's done in Full thrust/PP:F could simplify things.
Where it would differ from those games is the icons could be arranged in locations which suggest a deck plan.
The Alternity system of compartments could be a source of inspiration as well.

 

[robject]

Looks like we're heading toward a custom damage table per ship design.

No reason such a beastie can't be used alongside the generic damage tables (for ships without their own damage table). And the custom damage table can be imposed onto a deckplan when convenient -- the custom table for a Scout maps nicely to the Scout's plans, after all. And as Piper said, ya don't want deckplans to be mandatory (imagine deckplans for a dreadnought).

 

[mike wightman]

For NPC ships a simpler damage system (I like the icon system) can be used, but for PCs and the ships of the major bad guy the more detailed the better. Get out the deck plans.

 

[flykiller]

And as Piper said, ya don't want deckplans to be mandatory (imagine deckplans for a dreadnought).

well again, if the initial focus is a basic set for referees/PC's then we already have more than enough deckplans available.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And as Piper said, ya don't want deckplans to be mandatory (imagine deckplans for a dreadnought).

well again, if the initial focus is a basic set for referees/PC's then we already have more than enough deckplans available. </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly -- those Classic ships under 1000 tons are shoe-ins.

 

[kaladorn]

Icons can work. You could do sectored icons in a FullThrust (PP:E/F) type model.

I prefer to not use hexes. I prefer a nice black or speckled felt starmat. Lord knows, a measuring tape and a cardboard turn gauge (or just use the pips painted on the figure bases) can work easily enough. And I actually like to let a player indicate he wants to turn 20 degrees instead of 30, if that's his whim.

I have contemplated upscaled Full Thrust ships. Getting a good model of the free-trader, etc. isn't hard. You could do the damage as iconic. The only issue becomes using weapons combat mechanics that allow character skills and other DMs to play a role but not dwarf things like range, armour, etc.

And to my knowledge, no game except perhaps Attack Vector (hello PhD in Physics or Math!) handles blow through or stern or bow rakes very well.

The other thing that would be nice to see is a sort of 'critical hit' rule - things that cause just the kind of stuff your PCs have to respond to: Power plant overload, sensor overload, fire, ruptured coolant lines, X, Y or Z.... things that require some of the PCs to race out of their workstations and do some 'fire brigade' type activity to lock down the situation.

I don't want to see hits like that so common that good tactics go out the window, but leave there be some small chance. After all, this is how your Beowulf with a Gunner-4 has some chance to slow down a Dragon class SDB despite the Dragon's superior armour - one well placed shot into a fuel scoop that causes a fuel bladder rupture or something like that.

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:

I don't mind the long turns for the maneuvering before combat, the sub-hunt game if you like, but once battle is joined I want it fast and furious to maintain tension.

Sounds like you would enjoy some of the mechanics of the old wet-navy game Harpoon. There was two turn scales. The 10 minute turn was for precontact manuvering. Once a blip is made the game goes to a 30 second turn. With rule variants using referees you can add more towards having one side not knowing the location of the opposition. This situation could happen alot as the US and some Allies have better sensor and stealth tech than the Soviets.

For me I like rules that can show the difference in various tech abilities (Weapons, speed, sensors, stealth, etc) between navies. That way each side has to fight with the +/- of thier ships, versus the +/- of the enemy (Honoverse is a perfect example).

Currently GT satisfy my likes, though it can get cumbersome with large actions.

 

[Piper]

If you want to keep it at a ref/PC level then deckplans would work but if you want to expand it, tying it to deckplans is going to present problems.
A schematic representation using hit boxes would seem a lot more flexible if hit tables are an issue.
Some of the older naval wargames used a system like that; a gridded silhouette showing major areas.

I'm not familiar with Full Thrust. How do the icons work there?

 

[flykiller]

If you want to keep it at a ref/PC level then deckplans would work but if you want to expand it, tying it to deckplans is going to present problems.

that's why such an expansion module would be directed to gearheads. they'll put in the time to make it work. the basic game would be directed to referees and players, who are more likely to be satisfied with a selection of typical PC and smaller military vessels.

 

[flykiller]

On the question of scale: what does everyone play on? I use the large hex maps from 2300/BL/BR and use Mayday rules. If most people are using hexes I would think we'd almost have to scale the game in time and distance to allow 1-G thrust to equal 1 hex movement with time and range calculation based on that.Thoughts?

ah yes, the playing space. let the nightmare begin.

if one presumes 1000-second turns and that one turn of acceleration will result in a velocity that will then cross one game space segment per turn, the size of the game space segment is easily determined. 1000 seconds * 32 ft / second second = 32,000 feet / second. at this constant speed the vessel will cross one light second in 30.74 turns, thus each light second will be 30.74 game space segments - let's round it up to 32 for later ease in scalability. therefore each light second is broken up into 32 hexes or squares or whatever is most appropriate. now, consider earth. 8000 mile diameter, 800,000 mile 100d limit - that's a 4.29 LS radius, 8.6 LS diameter. assuming each game space segment is 1/2 inch wide that means the playing area for earth's 100d limit volume is over 11 feet by 11 feet. now toss in the fact that an M6 vessel can cross this entire map from a dead stop in nine turns, and the fact that much fleet, smuggling, and pirate action will occur beyond the 100d limit thus requiring a larger map, and ... well, you get the picture.

so, do you really want vector movement depicted graphically?

I do, and I want fleet actions besides, so I use *.bmp bitmap files. works great for me, but I don't know if anyone else would accept it. star wars it is not. "see that little dot? that's your ship. see that other little dot? that's the battle cruiser out to get you. see that little box of five by five dots? that's earth." a bit abstract.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by George Boyett:
Sounds like you would enjoy some of the mechanics of the old wet-navy game Harpoon. There was two turn scales. The 10 minute turn was for precontact manuvering. Once a blip is made the game goes to a 30 second turn. With rule variants using referees you can add more towards having one side not knowing the location of the opposition. This situation could happen alot as the US and some Allies have better sensor and stealth tech than the Soviets.

It's one of those games I've been wanting to pick up for a while now.

For me I like rules that can show the difference in various tech abilities (Weapons, speed, sensors, stealth, etc) between navies. That way each side has to fight with the +/- of their ships, versus the +/- of the enemy (Honoverse is a perfect example).

Such a variety would be excellent to include.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Piper:
A schematic representation using hit boxes would seem a lot more flexible if hit tables are an issue.
Some of the older naval wargames used a system like that; a gridded silhouette showing major areas.

Hmm, gridded silhouette and hit boxes. That would work.

I've just drawn up a scout, but I can't copy it here

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by flykiller:
so, do you really want vector movement depicted graphically?

Yes, I do. The use of hexes does not force any particular time/distance scale, only a relationship between the two. I'm perfectly happy sacrificing reality to playability in a science fiction game setting.
If the purpose of this discussion is to create a space combat sim, then I need to bow out. I use three for pi.

That's not intended to be flippant, either. I know the limitation of a hex-based movement system. It's part of what prompted my question. If most of the people here are plotting vectors to scale, I won't have much to contribute.

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you want to keep it at a ref/PC level then deckplans would work but if you want to expand it, tying it to deckplans is going to present problems.

that's why such an expansion module would be directed to gearheads. they'll put in the time to make it work. the basic game would be directed to referees and players, who are more likely to be satisfied with a selection of typical PC and smaller military vessels. </font>[/QUOTE]Wouldn't it have wider appeal if the expansion worked the other way?
"You can use this system for any ship. If deckplans are available, you can use the detailed damage location rules."

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Piper:
A schematic representation using hit boxes would seem a lot more flexible if hit tables are an issue.
Some of the older naval wargames used a system like that; a gridded silhouette showing major areas.

Hmm, gridded silhouette and hit boxes. That would work.

I've just drawn up a scout, but I can't copy it here </font>[/QUOTE]If you haven't already, you might want to tie the number of boxes to a convenient set of dice rolls; 1 to 6 laterally, 1-10 or 2-12 down the length or some such depending on how the aspect ratio fits. Some fudging would seem appropriate here as the target is usually going to be the center of mass.
Maybe linking it in some way to how much margin there was on the "to hit" roll?

Gunner skill and/or a Selective program could allow deviation from the roll by a certain amount.