CT Only: Stealing the T5 Tactics Rule

[Supplement Four]

I really like the T5 Tactics rule. (View it at the bottom of this linked post.)

I think the same idea could be used in a CT game, and doing this will give the Tactics skill a real mechancial benefit in the game.

A the start of a combat encounter, roll to see if the character with the skill is able to use his tactical knowledge during the game (determine if it will benefit him, given the circumstances).

Tactics Skill - 1D = Tactics Bonus

Roll 1D and subtract that sum from the Tactics skill. DMs: if EDU 5+ then -1; if EDU 10+ then -2.

Thus, a character with Tactics 1 and EDU 7 would roll:

1 - (1D -1)



If the result is zero or a negative number, then the character does not gain at tactical advantage.

On the occassions where a tactical advantage is obtained, the result is a modifier that can be added to any combat throw during the combat. And, the character with the Tactical advatnage (the one with the skill) can give that bonus to any other ally with which he can communicate.

Basically, if your EDU is 4-, then you'll need Tactics-2 to obtain any tactical advantage. Tacitcs-1 will give you a +1 Tactical advantage when the dice roll is "1" if EDU 5-9, or when dice roll is 1-2 if EDU 10+.



Example.

Fred has EDU 9 and Tactics-2.

At the start of a combat encounter, he rolls for a tactical advantage.

2 - (1D-1). He rolls a 1 on the die, thus the equation is 2 - 0 = 2.

For this combat, Fred has a tactical advantage. He can add +2 to any combat throw each round, or he can give the advantage to one of his teammates.




Notes: I just made up the EDU bonuses on the spot. They deserve more thinking.

Also - Will using this tactical advantage unbalance the game? High Tactics skill should be rare, but will someone with Tactics-5, or Tactics-3, dominate all combat encounters? This may be a can of worms better left unopened.

 

[atpollard]

Thought 1:
Education Bonuses should be a +1 or +2 in Classic Traveller mechanics (rather than a minus):

(Tactics Skill + Edu Bonus) - D6

Same mathematical results, it just presents a bonus as a plus rather than a minus.

Thought 2:
It might be even more CT-esque to have a +1 for high EDU and a -1 for low EDU like the general weapon-strength/dexterity bonus/penalty.

Thought 3:
Since Tactics 3 is pretty uncommon in CT and we want a reasonable chance of getting a positive result, it might make sense to offer a +1/-1 Bonus/Penalty for High/Low scores for both INT and EDU ...

(Tactics Skill + Edu Bonus + Int Bonus) - D6

A CT character with Tactics-1, High EDU and High INT would roll (1+1+1) - D6 for a +2 (17%), +1 (17%) or +0 (67%)
A CT character with Tactics-2, High EDU and High INT would roll (2+1+1) - D6 for a +3 (17%), +2 (17%), +1 (17%) or +0 (50%)
A CT character with Tactics-3, High EDU and High INT would roll (3+1+1) - D6 for a +4 (17%), +3 (17%), +2 (17%), +1 (17%) or +0 (33%)

A CT character with Tactics-1, Ave EDU and Ave INT would roll (1+0+0) - D6 for a +0 (100%)
A CT character with Tactics-2, Ave EDU and Ave INT would roll (2+0+0) - D6 for a +1 (17%) or +0 (83%)
A CT character with Tactics-3, Ave EDU and Ave INT would roll (3+0+0) - D6 for a +2 (17%), +1 (17%) or +0 (67%)

It goes without saying that a low IQ, uneducated tactician will not grant many bonuses ...
A CT character with Tactics-4, Low EDU and Low INT would roll (4-1-1) - D6 for a +1 (17%) or +0 (83%)

However a natural leader is possible ...
A CT character with Tactics-0, High EDU and High INT would roll (0+1+1) - D6 for a +1 (17%) or +0 (83%)
... as good as an average character with Tactics-2.

My thinking is Tactics skill is valuable practical experience, Edu provides study of historic tactics to draw from, Int provides greater innate situational awareness to see exploitable opportunities.

My initial thought would be to define "high" as EDU/INT of 10+ and "Low" as EDU/INT of 4 or less.

 

[atpollard]

Also - Will using this tactical advantage unbalance the game? High Tactics skill should be rare, but will someone with Tactics-5, or Tactics-3, dominate all combat encounters? This may be a can of worms better left unopened.

One option is to allow the Tactics bonus to only offset negative modifiers - Tactics reduces penalties rather than heaps on bonuses.

A second option is to limit the Tactics bonus to +1 on on any specific individual with a +3 tactics bonus spread among 3 people ... better tactics rolls allow you to influence more people at the same time.

 

[BytePro]

Why would you need any of this?

First, EDU already factors into obtaining Tactics - there should be no additional EDU bonus. General education has little to do with combat tactics, IMO.

Second, I never had any problem finding practical 'mechanical' use for this skill.

Tactics does have a stated +1 DM for Surprise. I give Tactics DMs for Avoiding encounters, establishing presence and disposition of opponents, second guessing for flanking attempts, etc., etc. However, I don't use a predetermined mechanistic approach such as +2 per level - but rather gauge the DM (and the roll) on situation, especially as this can be an 'opposed' DM. I also allow Tactics as a DM to remain hidden (individually) - i.e. a stealth or recon type roll (I don't use LBB4 chargen) - when acting against a small group. Skill in guessing the placement of guards, lookouts, and forward observers can be quite useful.

Its really no different than Steward, its a skill that requires specific situations to be useful mechanically - as the rules state, 'an intangible'. Such are generally best dealt with on a case by case basis, rather than an established throw or DM mechanic.

 

[Supplement Four]

Thought 1:
Education Bonuses should be a +1 or +2 in Classic Traveller mechanics (rather than a minus):

(Tactics Skill + Edu Bonus) - D6

Same mathematical results, it just presents a bonus as a plus rather than a minus.

Yes.

Thought 3:
Since Tactics 3 is pretty uncommon in CT and we want a reasonable chance of getting a positive result....

Actually, I wasn't shooting for a reasonable chance for a positive result. I figure the CT combat system already has enough modifiers to hit 8+.

I was thinking more along the lines that, occasionally, Tactics will provide a bonus. Which is why I wrote the throw the way I did.

One option is to allow the Tactics bonus to only offset negative modifiers - Tactics reduces penalties rather than heaps on bonuses.

That's nice, too.

Why would you need any of this?

First, EDU already factors into obtaining Tactics - there should be no additional EDU bonus.

And, true to CT, many times only skills are addressed without referring to a stat.

 

[BytePro]

A second option is to limit the Tactics bonus to +1 on on any specific individual with a +3 tactics bonus spread among 3 people ... better tactics rolls allow you to influence more people at the same time.

I apply Tactics DMs to the individual and at the party level (ala the Surprise DM) - but to apply to other individuals' rolls I generally require Leadership skill as well, with Leadership skill limiting the Tactics DM... of course, this is all situational.

 

[aldemps]

I like this idea & have a couple of thoughts:

1/ I would limit the Tactics skill to modifying the terrain DMs, with the player declaring if he is applying the bonus to his terrain (Defence -better use of his cover) or to his target's at the beginning of the round.

2/ I would let a player use his tactics to automatically influence another team mate only if the player has Leadership skill.
If he doesn't have the skill then his tactical advice may be ignored & wasted.
Team mate must roll 8+ (DM for high/low INT) to be able to use the bonus.

3/ Limit the amount of 'Tactical Decisions' made by a character in an encounter equal to the skill level.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

aldemps, I would also allow the tactics skill to apply based on the group's experience with the PC. If they've been in combat with him multiple times before, and he's known what he's doing (vice always ending up needing the autodoc for a few days), then I would situationally allow the DM, as well.

 

[BytePro]

I also take into account Career type.

Marines generally only get full benefit from Tactics when relevant to the likes of Spaceships, Starports, Bases and the like (i.e. generally sophont-made environs). The Army specialize in planetary ops. (Noting I stick to simple LBB1-3 when it comes to careers and skills.)

Also, not all application of skills involve rolls. Characters with Tactics, for instance, I may clue in to certain information that other characters will not get. Just as I might inform a character with Streetwise that an NPC is a gang member from some visible clue. [Sometimes I try to do this privately, but its hard at the table. This year I am experimenting with using iDevices to facilitate this.]

 

[Bob Weaver]

One option is to allow the Tactics bonus to only offset negative modifiers - Tactics reduces penalties rather than heaps on bonuses.

Don't forget that if your PC's have Tactics skill on their side, then the referee should give some of their opponents Tactics skill as well. If the PC's use Tactics points to give themselves bonuses or reduce penalties, the opfor can cancel out those bonuses or add to the penalties with their Tactics points. Whatever the PC's Tactics skill level, the referee can maintain the level of challenge by having the opfor possess similar levels of skill. Game balance is maintained, because PC's know that there are groups out there who are just as tactically skilled as they are.

By the way, over on my blog, I wrote a piece a while ago about using tactics in RPG fights. I'm not a trained tactician, so my remarks are general in nature, but I would enjoy getting some feedback & better advice from anyone with some real life Tactics skill to share.

 

[Bob Weaver]

Why would you need any of this?

First, EDU already factors into obtaining Tactics - there should be no additional EDU bonus. General education has little to do with combat tactics, IMO.

I agree, Byte. I work with a lot of professionals in Higher Education, even some that teach history and study WWI & WWII, etc. This does not at all mean that they can lead a squad in setting up an enfilade, or preparing defensive positions. Maybe some of them can, but it is not because they've got a high EDU score.

 

[Supplement Four]

I agree, Byte. I work with a lot of professionals in Higher Education, even some that teach history and study WWI & WWII, etc. This does not at all mean that they can lead a squad in setting up an enfilade, or preparing defensive positions. Maybe some of them can, but it is not because they've got a high EDU score.

That's what I love about CT. With something like this, you can isoloate skill and ignore stat. Not so in most other versions of Traveller.

With a task like this, where Tactics trainging is obviously crucial, you could do something like "+2" or "+4" DM per skill level for a mod on the task.

 

[samuelvss]

I work with a lot of professionals in Higher Education, even some that teach history and study WWI & WWII, etc. This does not at all mean that they can lead a squad in setting up an enfilade, or preparing defensive positions. Maybe some of them can, but it is not because they've got a high EDU score.

I agree, but (with tactical training, over-educated, and a history major) I would opine that INT would have more to do with it than EDU. Tactics is about learning certain time-space realtionships, and techniques for dealing with them, that are subject to intuitive approaches; that said, there would have to be a High level of INT to sub for a even Tactics-1. Education has nothing to do with it.

 

[BytePro]

That's what I love about CT. With something like this, you can isoloate skill and ignore stat. Not so in most other versions of Traveller.

With a task like this, where Tactics trainging is obviously crucial, you could do something like "+2" or "+4" DM per skill level for a mod on the task.

Yeah - you can make the skill levels important.

If you are rolling a task 20 times in a session, +1 DMs can be 'felt', but if you are only rolling twice, odds are it'll make no difference.

You can also make this top out. For example, Level-3 may have no real meaning and no extra DM for particular tasks. Likewise, impart significant negative DMs for tasks that would require a particular Level (ala the -5 DMs seen in the RAW). You're not boxed in and left force fitting preset DMs in to accommodate unique situations... conversely, all the effort is up to you. (Ironically, I find this easier than the structured systems I've tried - but maybe that is just experience...)

I agree, but (with tactical training, over-educated, and a history major) I would opine that INT would have more to do with it than EDU. Tactics is about learning certain time-space realtionships, and techniques for dealing with them, that are subject to intuitive approaches; that said, there would have to be a High level of INT to sub for a even Tactics-1.

Yeah - I might give a DM to 'opposed' Tactics based on differences in INT. It would be +1 unless the INTs were several points apart.

I might also take into account general experience/age - and adjust target instead of giving DMs. Ex: a 2 term PC with Tactics-2 vs a 4-term Tactics-2/Leadership-2 NPC.

With LBB1-3 characters I find this imminently doable. With spreadsheet style character sheets, not so much. (I started making apps to make this more 'manageable', then realized the overall absurdity.)

 

[SanDragon]

I agree, but (with tactical training, over-educated, and a history major) I would opine that INT would have more to do with it than EDU. Tactics is about learning certain time-space realtionships, and techniques for dealing with them, that are subject to intuitive approaches; that said, there would have to be a High level of INT to sub for a even Tactics-1. Education has nothing to do with it.

And yet it is an age-old joke that military intelligence is an oxymoron.

Don't military schools teach tactics?

Having thrown two credits in, nothing teaches like real experience.

 

[atpollard]

I agree, Byte. I work with a lot of professionals in Higher Education, even some that teach history and study WWI & WWII, etc. This does not at all mean that they can lead a squad in setting up an enfilade, or preparing defensive positions. Maybe some of them can, but it is not because they've got a high EDU score.

Might Education make a difference if one of those professionals had a BA in History from West Point?

 

[BytePro]

In getting to a particular Tactics level - yes. That's already expressed in the chargen DMs.

If a character has a particular background specialty/experience applicable for a given situation - I can see extra DMs for that. But not for the attribute as a universal given.

Example: Tactics and History expertise is unlikely to have any impact on squad level surprise in the field, but planning a battle field altercation, sure.

 

[Shonner]

Don't military schools teach tactics?

Some schools teach tactics skills if one meets their INT requirement. The teachers do recommend the study of historical battles in addition to. Some military history students become teachers if they have a high EDU and do not continue on with their own tactics training.

 

[Bob Weaver]

In getting to a particular Tactics level - yes. That's already expressed in the chargen DMs.

If a character has a particular background specialty/experience applicable for a given situation - I can see extra DMs for that. But not for the attribute as a universal given.

Example: Tactics and History expertise is unlikely to have any impact on squad level surprise in the field, but planning a battle field altercation, sure.

This is where having character stories is important - players looking past the skill titles and deciding when & where & why their character knows the skills they do. That's an advantage to the CT Prior Service character generation - it gives players a story framework, but with plenty of freedom to invent the details.

Cheers,

Bob W