To "Striker" or not to "Striker" - that is the Question!

[Golan2072]

I have the chance of purchasing Striker from a friend of mine in local currecny (which eliminates the problems of buying online and shipping to the middle-eastern hellhole I live in); however, I wonder if such a purchase would be a good use of my VERY limited funds. He's offered me Striker several months ago, and I've refused it back then, but the current forum discussion has caused me to reconsider...

I've thumbed through my possible aquision and the main questions I have are:

1) How difficult is the Striker combat system to learn and how complex is it to use? While I'd like to integrate vehicles into my CT game and possibly add some military dimentions to things, I am no wargamer; I prefer to use the military-technological details of Striker as a background for small unit- and person-oriented roleplaying and action.

2) How easy is Striker to integrate with the existing CT (LBBs 1-8) rules? Does it mesh well with them?

3) I've seen the vehicle system and it looks quite complicated at the first glance; however, most Traveller gearheading systems (LBBs 2, 5 and 8) look frightening at the first look but are REALLY FUN to gearhead with after a few hours of reading them. Is the Striker design system as complicated as LBB 5 or 8, or is it even more complicated? How easy is it to use once you get used to it?

 

[Golan2072]

I have the chance of purchasing Striker from a friend of mine in local currecny (which eliminates the problems of buying online and shipping to the middle-eastern hellhole I live in); however, I wonder if such a purchase would be a good use of my VERY limited funds. He's offered me Striker several months ago, and I've refused it back then, but the current forum discussion has caused me to reconsider...

I've thumbed through my possible aquision and the main questions I have are:

1) How difficult is the Striker combat system to learn and how complex is it to use? While I'd like to integrate vehicles into my CT game and possibly add some military dimentions to things, I am no wargamer; I prefer to use the military-technological details of Striker as a background for small unit- and person-oriented roleplaying and action.

2) How easy is Striker to integrate with the existing CT (LBBs 1-8) rules? Does it mesh well with them?

3) I've seen the vehicle system and it looks quite complicated at the first glance; however, most Traveller gearheading systems (LBBs 2, 5 and 8) look frightening at the first look but are REALLY FUN to gearhead with after a few hours of reading them. Is the Striker design system as complicated as LBB 5 or 8, or is it even more complicated? How easy is it to use once you get used to it?

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) How difficult is the Striker combat system to learn and how complex is it to use?

Moderate to hard. Some of the rules concepts may be hard to grasp at first and some aspects like ordering units and system design can be fussy.

2) How easy is Striker to integrate with the existing CT (LBBs 1-8) rules? Does it mesh well with them?

Integration is near-perfect and characters can be dropped into Striker easily, but see following comments. Also, the game can quickly bog down if you try to fight too large a battle. Striker is aimed at platoon/company-sized actions.

3) I've seen the vehicle system and it looks quite complicated at the first glance; ... How easy is it to use once you get used to it?

I'd say the design sequence is potentially more complicated than any of the ones you listed. While a truck is fairly simple, a tank can take several hours to design and involve a lot of back-and-forth trimming to get everything to fit.
Also, you're going to have to design almost everything from scratch unless you can locate a library of published designs somewhere.

It's a darn good system, though. I once modeled a German Panther tank in Striker and the finished weight came out to within one ton of the original.

If you're looking for a simpler system, Mega-Traveller adopted many of Striker's design systems but simplified the process. For example, in Striker you need to determine the thickness and slope of all 6 faces of a tank chassis and determine armor ratings from that. In MT you have one overall value for the vehicle. Also, MT has a large-scale combat system which allows much larger units. The downside to MT is that you'll need 3 books to get what's in Striker; the Ref manual, COACC (for aircraft) and (I think) the Rebellion Sourcebook for large-scale combat/

 

[Piper]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) How difficult is the Striker combat system to learn and how complex is it to use?

Moderate to hard. Some of the rules concepts may be hard to grasp at first and some aspects like ordering units and system design can be fussy.

2) How easy is Striker to integrate with the existing CT (LBBs 1-8) rules? Does it mesh well with them?

Integration is near-perfect and characters can be dropped into Striker easily, but see following comments. Also, the game can quickly bog down if you try to fight too large a battle. Striker is aimed at platoon/company-sized actions.

3) I've seen the vehicle system and it looks quite complicated at the first glance; ... How easy is it to use once you get used to it?

I'd say the design sequence is potentially more complicated than any of the ones you listed. While a truck is fairly simple, a tank can take several hours to design and involve a lot of back-and-forth trimming to get everything to fit.
Also, you're going to have to design almost everything from scratch unless you can locate a library of published designs somewhere.

It's a darn good system, though. I once modeled a German Panther tank in Striker and the finished weight came out to within one ton of the original.

If you're looking for a simpler system, Mega-Traveller adopted many of Striker's design systems but simplified the process. For example, in Striker you need to determine the thickness and slope of all 6 faces of a tank chassis and determine armor ratings from that. In MT you have one overall value for the vehicle. Also, MT has a large-scale combat system which allows much larger units. The downside to MT is that you'll need 3 books to get what's in Striker; the Ref manual, COACC (for aircraft) and (I think) the Rebellion Sourcebook for large-scale combat/

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Piper:
Moderate to hard. Some of the rules concepts may be hard to grasp at first and some aspects like ordering units and system design can be fussy.

Integration is near-perfect and characters can be dropped into Striker easily, but see following comments. Also, the game can quickly bog down if you try to fight too large a battle. Striker is aimed at platoon/company-sized actions.

Remember, I'll probably integrate it at Squad level or even Fireteam level; so there won't be many NPCs to order (I'm thinking more along the lines of a small Marine unit or a guerilla team (overall, possibly 4 PCs and 7-8 NPCs) rather than a PC-commanded Platoons or more. So are you saying that squad level action will be decently flowing (I hope that not too many rolls/tables are needed per shot/slash)?

I'd say the design sequence is potentially more complicated than any of the ones you listed. While a truck is fairly simple, a tank can take several hours to design and involve a lot of back-and-forth trimming to get everything to fit.
Also, you're going to have to design almost everything from scratch unless you can locate a library of published designs somewhere.

It's a darn good system, though. I once modeled a German Panther tank in Striker and the finished weight came out to within one ton of the original.

As long as the end result is easy to use (i.e. that you don't have to check the sloping of each of a tank's sides every time you try to shoot a PGMP-12 at it), I don't mind involved gearheading.

Oh, and a library could be built - if I'll buy it (which I'll probably do), I'll post every component I'll build so others would be able to use it. And togather, our community could design a wide variety of components/weapons for Striker.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Piper:
Moderate to hard. Some of the rules concepts may be hard to grasp at first and some aspects like ordering units and system design can be fussy.

Integration is near-perfect and characters can be dropped into Striker easily, but see following comments. Also, the game can quickly bog down if you try to fight too large a battle. Striker is aimed at platoon/company-sized actions.

Remember, I'll probably integrate it at Squad level or even Fireteam level; so there won't be many NPCs to order (I'm thinking more along the lines of a small Marine unit or a guerilla team (overall, possibly 4 PCs and 7-8 NPCs) rather than a PC-commanded Platoons or more. So are you saying that squad level action will be decently flowing (I hope that not too many rolls/tables are needed per shot/slash)?

I'd say the design sequence is potentially more complicated than any of the ones you listed. While a truck is fairly simple, a tank can take several hours to design and involve a lot of back-and-forth trimming to get everything to fit.
Also, you're going to have to design almost everything from scratch unless you can locate a library of published designs somewhere.

It's a darn good system, though. I once modeled a German Panther tank in Striker and the finished weight came out to within one ton of the original.

As long as the end result is easy to use (i.e. that you don't have to check the sloping of each of a tank's sides every time you try to shoot a PGMP-12 at it), I don't mind involved gearheading.

Oh, and a library could be built - if I'll buy it (which I'll probably do), I'll post every component I'll build so others would be able to use it. And togather, our community could design a wide variety of components/weapons for Striker.

 

[The Oz]

Striker is a wonderful design system (not without its quirks, but still a wonderful system). It can take a while to build a vehicle but you can easily use it once you've built it.

I don't use the full Striker rules in my CT/MT universe, but I do use the weapon/vehicle rules. I have (of course) modified things to fit my idea of how things should work (especially the rules about how to translate Striker damage to Book 2 characters).

I would recommend buying it just for the new weapons and gear found in the third Striker book and for the notes on Traveller militaries found in Striker Book 2; there's a lot of good stuff there about the Rules of War and how the different Traveller races do things on the battlefield.

 

[The Oz]

Striker is a wonderful design system (not without its quirks, but still a wonderful system). It can take a while to build a vehicle but you can easily use it once you've built it.

I don't use the full Striker rules in my CT/MT universe, but I do use the weapon/vehicle rules. I have (of course) modified things to fit my idea of how things should work (especially the rules about how to translate Striker damage to Book 2 characters).

I would recommend buying it just for the new weapons and gear found in the third Striker book and for the notes on Traveller militaries found in Striker Book 2; there's a lot of good stuff there about the Rules of War and how the different Traveller races do things on the battlefield.

 

[Golan2072]

More questions:
1) How easy are Striker personal (or team/squad level) weapons to convert to CT stats?

2) How different is Striker for LBBs 1-8 in terms of lethality, ease of play and battlefield realism?

3) Strangely enough, it is rarely discussed on these boards; is it rare, or simply unfavorable? It seems like a system in need of a community, as I've said above.

4) The Oz, can you please share your Striker house rules with us?

 

[Golan2072]

More questions:
1) How easy are Striker personal (or team/squad level) weapons to convert to CT stats?

2) How different is Striker for LBBs 1-8 in terms of lethality, ease of play and battlefield realism?

3) Strangely enough, it is rarely discussed on these boards; is it rare, or simply unfavorable? It seems like a system in need of a community, as I've said above.

4) The Oz, can you please share your Striker house rules with us?

 

[mike wightman]

The Striker combat system is a development from the system used in Azhanti High Lightning.
It was later adapted to become the MT system.

There have been a few articles about adapting Striker to CT personal combat over the years, and I have to admit that once Striker was published it became the default Traveller combat system for my group for years - evey weapon written up on its own index card

I designed spaceships using Striker and they worked, and best of all the combat scaled effortlessly from characters to vehicles to space ships.

 

[mike wightman]

The Striker combat system is a development from the system used in Azhanti High Lightning.
It was later adapted to become the MT system.

There have been a few articles about adapting Striker to CT personal combat over the years, and I have to admit that once Striker was published it became the default Traveller combat system for my group for years - evey weapon written up on its own index card

I designed spaceships using Striker and they worked, and best of all the combat scaled effortlessly from characters to vehicles to space ships.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) How easy are Striker personal (or team/squad level) weapons to convert to CT stats?

Most are already covered in Mercenary, but the two gems are the higher TL laser weapons (including laser pistol) and the gauss pistol.

2) How different is Striker for LBBs 1-8 in terms of lethality, ease of play and battlefield realism?

The folks at GDW were all war gamers first, so Striker is a pretty good platoon level war game for combat across all the TLs of Traveller.
The rules take a couple of tries to get used to - start off with no more than a platoon per side and you'll soon get the hang of things.
It's easily as lethal as CT.

3) Strangely enough, it is rarely discussed on these boards; is it rare, or simply unfavorable? It seems like a system in need of a community, as I've said above.

You are right about that, and I have no idea why.
Yet I haven't heard of many bad things being said about it.
An awful lot of people used it, or AHL, as their combat system for CT in place of LBB1 or Snapshot AFAIK.

4) The Oz, can you please share your Striker house rules with us?

Yes, please do

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
1) How easy are Striker personal (or team/squad level) weapons to convert to CT stats?

Most are already covered in Mercenary, but the two gems are the higher TL laser weapons (including laser pistol) and the gauss pistol.

2) How different is Striker for LBBs 1-8 in terms of lethality, ease of play and battlefield realism?

The folks at GDW were all war gamers first, so Striker is a pretty good platoon level war game for combat across all the TLs of Traveller.
The rules take a couple of tries to get used to - start off with no more than a platoon per side and you'll soon get the hang of things.
It's easily as lethal as CT.

3) Strangely enough, it is rarely discussed on these boards; is it rare, or simply unfavorable? It seems like a system in need of a community, as I've said above.

You are right about that, and I have no idea why.
Yet I haven't heard of many bad things being said about it.
An awful lot of people used it, or AHL, as their combat system for CT in place of LBB1 or Snapshot AFAIK.

4) The Oz, can you please share your Striker house rules with us?

Yes, please do

 

[aramis]

My Take: if you don't do MT, do Striker.

The rules are no more complex than MT, albeit in (mostly) different areas.

MT vehicle design is basically striker.

Playwise, if not doing the command/control/commo side of things. it's acutally quite straightforward to play. Same mechanics of combat as AHL; AHL has different movement rules.

 

[aramis]

My Take: if you don't do MT, do Striker.

The rules are no more complex than MT, albeit in (mostly) different areas.

MT vehicle design is basically striker.

Playwise, if not doing the command/control/commo side of things. it's acutally quite straightforward to play. Same mechanics of combat as AHL; AHL has different movement rules.

 

[jonathonbarton]

I liked Striker 'back in the day' so much, that I started looking for another copy off and on (first was lost in a move) 10 years ago...

I finally got it about 3 weeks ago.
If you have the opportunity, get it.

LBB-8 Robots are fully Striker Compatible, and that's what I'm working on at the moment.

<offtopic> though, I'm finding that designing a TL-15 Pseudo-Bio Housecat is really freakin' hard... I mean..6 POUNDS for an olfactory sensor at TL15? Puh-Lease!)</offtopic>

 

[jonathonbarton]

I liked Striker 'back in the day' so much, that I started looking for another copy off and on (first was lost in a move) 10 years ago...

I finally got it about 3 weeks ago.
If you have the opportunity, get it.

LBB-8 Robots are fully Striker Compatible, and that's what I'm working on at the moment.

<offtopic> though, I'm finding that designing a TL-15 Pseudo-Bio Housecat is really freakin' hard... I mean..6 POUNDS for an olfactory sensor at TL15? Puh-Lease!)</offtopic>

 

[Uncle Bob]

Me too. Design is complicated, but satisfying. Much better than FF&S.

My group had already replaced CT combat with Azhanti High Lightning combat, so we took immediately to Striker. As has been said, the GDW boys were Wargamers before there were any RPGs, and IMHO Striker was one of their best.

IMHO, get it.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Me too. Design is complicated, but satisfying. Much better than FF&S.

My group had already replaced CT combat with Azhanti High Lightning combat, so we took immediately to Striker. As has been said, the GDW boys were Wargamers before there were any RPGs, and IMHO Striker was one of their best.

IMHO, get it.