To vector, or not to vector...

[Shonner]

Different versions of Traveller and its expansions use vector maneuvering for in-system ship travelling and ship combat.

For those of you that use vectoring, which version of Traveller and expansion space combat rules do you prefer to use?

For those of you that don't use vectoring for space battles, which versions do you play by to resolve combat?

 

[aramis]

While I tend to use MT, I don't do MT's High Guard system (which is a taskified version of CT HG) because it's non-vector. Instead, I use the weapon damages and penetrations listed in the Player's Manual, with mayday style movement, rescaled to 1 or 10 minute turns (to mesh up with Large Scale ground combat), and the Hits system.

I love vector. Its absence is the the one MAJOR screwup in MT.

 

[Matt123]

I like the LBB bk2 vector system, but in truth have never gamed with it. I use the HG/TCS system because I am more interested in the grand strategy aspect, HG provides a quick(ish) if somewhat abstracted system that takes into account most/all ship design variables.

Where my interest in the tactical battle starts & stops is in how it meshes with or changes my view on grand strategy (hence my current interest in commerce raiding).

Your choice in part depends on the scale you are interested in. IMHO both are good, but only one pushes my buttons.

 

[Tellon]

I use a 'hard sci" approach w/ TNE -- so no grav vehicles, no compensators, usally as the body can only take 1G -- everything is very slow --

and ships moving faster than 2G are usually RM/Robotic, so vectoring is unknown as I bring in elements of MT into my stuff as well .. with fly-by's, the need to use up fuel to slow down (turn n burn) and other aspects of realistic thrusters -- I will have to look at vectoring and see if it adds another layer of realism.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

While I tend to use MT, I don't do MT's High Guard system (which is a taskified version of CT HG) because it's non-vector. Instead, I use the weapon damages and penetrations listed in the Player's Manual, with mayday style movement, rescaled to 1 or 10 minute turns (to mesh up with Large Scale ground combat), and the Hits system.

I love vector. Its absence is the the one MAJOR screwup in MT.

Have you written this up? Not the Mayday vector, but the rescaled to 1 or 10 minute turns?

I ask because I think that MT lacks because it doesn't have a vector system, and would like to use one but have never got around to looking into it.

Regards,

Ewan

 

[E.D.Quibell]

I use a 'hard sci" approach w/ TNE -- so no grav vehicles, no compensators, usally as the body can only take 1G -- everything is very slow --

and ships moving faster than 2G are usually RM/Robotic, so vectoring is unknown as I bring in elements of MT into my stuff as well .. with fly-by's, the need to use up fuel to slow down (turn n burn) and other aspects of realistic thrusters -- I will have to look at vectoring and see if it adds another layer of realism.

Vectors could well make space combat IYTU far more interesting. Do you not use Brilliant Lances?

Regards,

Ewan

 

[spinwardpirate]

I've had a hankerin' for some vector combat the last few days!!! So much so that I pulled out my old copy of Mayday last night. And today I was looking at Attack Vector: Tactical on the net. Decisions, decisions.

 

[Hemdian]

I either use an abstract freeform (best for normal RPG sessions) that gives a nod to the FASA Star Trek system (specific tasks for each player, the group have to work together as a team).

Or I use PowerProjection (best for larger scale CruRon Vs CruRon battles).

 

[aramis]

Have you written this up? Not the Mayday vector, but the rescaled to 1 or 10 minute turns?

I ask because I think that MT lacks because it doesn't have a vector system, and would like to use one but have never got around to looking into it.

Regards,

Ewan

Yes, on my "Fixes Page" of my website been up for YEARS, tho not at that particular address.

 

[Tellon]

Vectors could well make space combat IYTU far more interesting. Do you not use Brilliant Lances?

Regards,

Ewan

I've heard of it -- but no, unfortunately .. I'd like to look thru it ..

 

[spinwardpirate]

Any of you ever tried Squadron Strike?

 

[E.D.Quibell]

I've heard of it -- but no, unfortunately .. I'd like to look thru it ..

Well if you have the odd $35, you can get a pdf of it here:

http://www.farfuture.net/

on the TNE CD, along with most other things TNE.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[mike wightman]

While I love the vector system for wargames - Mayday being my favourite but power projection being a close second - for actual gameplay I use the range band pseudo-vector system from starter edition Traveller.

 

[Tellon]

Well if you have the odd $35, you can get a pdf of it here:

http://www.farfuture.net/

on the TNE CD, along with most other things TNE.

Best regards,

Ewan

thx .. I apprectiate it ..

 

[the angle]

I, too, love the vector movement system, especially with hex maps as it's done in Mayday, but in a typical Traveller running battle between two ships, it's largely pointless. Unless those ships are approaching one another head-on at high relative velocity, one of them is maneuvering to rendezvous with a 'stationary' object such as a planet, or you're trying to mirror the final battle in The Forever War, a simpler, more abstract setup is all that's really needed.

One thing we discovered fairly quickly is that you could play a vector-based battle between two ships in a significantly smaller space by figuring the relative velocity between them and then leaving the defender ship (usually the lower-G one) stationary in the middle of the table while the intruder maneuvers around it using only its relative velocity. In mathematical terms, what you're doing is subtracting the slower ship's initial vector from the faster ship's and then using the difference as the faster's ship's initial vector. After that, each turn the intruder moves and adjusts its vector, then the defender's pilot applies his ship's acceleration to the intruder ship in a defensive manner. If those two ships are the only things on the map, then the result is exactly the same as when both ships move around independently. It's just more compact.

Steve

 

[Tellon]

hmmm, interesting

ok -- so let's say we have 2 ships ...

ship a) tree trader, 400 dTon -- 1G
ship b) pirate, 400 dTon -- 1G

they are going in opposite directions -- to they will fly past easch other

so if the pirate wants to stop -- he will have to do a 1 hr burn of 1G thrust to get to 0G, turn around, and then do another 1G burn in the opposite direction to face the trader, which will easily show him basically 3 "turns" behind (as the pirate lost space in order to get up to speed)

and at 142 min/LS -- so the trader would roughly be ~ .6 LS ahead of the pirate -- which comes out to be ... 179400 km or in TNE terms -- nearly 6 hexes ahead -- still in solid weapons range for the pirate.

--

or the pirate will be smart and do a 1G thrust to stop 1 hr (2 turns) before the trader gets there so as the trader gets there -- the pirate starts his 1G burn to chase the trader; in this case - the seperation will be around 30 min behind -- or about 59,800km which is nearly 2 hexes -- easy shots for most ships

--

If the trader was being escorted by an SDB -- then either way -- the SDB will be launching missile salvos at the pirate to seriously hurt if not destroy the pirate. So the pirate will most likely have seen the SDB's signature in thier PEMS, and decided the fight aint worth it, unless there were several pirates lying in wait.

 

[Ishmael]

This is free to try

http://playthisthing.com/vector-3

 

[sabredog]

In the past I have used Book 2 and vectoring out of Mayday to run combat on the player level. Regrettably my current players can't get their heads around vector movement so I just rough it out on a sheet of paper for myself and tell them what happens and they do their rolls. It's iffy I suppose, but I can make it work.

For larger scale battles I use High Guard. But I prefer Book 2 combat results because I find HG too abstract and not rewarding role-playing when used on the smaller ship scale the players are on. But it's great for the big things happening in the backdrop.

And finally, I use a modified version of Book 2 combat and results tables to incorporate some of the things in HG that will work on the small ship scale and broaden the combat results on the Book 2 hit tables, including jiggering the odds when building some types of ships (like carriers get more hanger hits, bulk freighters take it in the cargo holds more, SDB's (and some others) have a lower chance of taking bridge hits, etc. when applicable).

 

[JustinInOz]

Thanks for the memories

I picked up Traveller when I was in highschool. It was the first time I encountered vectors.

Vectors in physiscs were abstract. Vectors in ship to ship combat were life and death!

Needless to say I learned more about vector math and geometry in a few afternoons of Traveller than all of sophomore highschool physics.

Anything less than vectors is a compromise. Though I admit, fleet actions are probably better handled with a more abstract system. For adventure class ships, where it is up close and personal, use vectors.

 

[sabredog]

Past player groups were more "wargamey" and we used to unroll our giant sheet of butcher paper and pencil in the vectors of the ships, missiles, sand, and chaff. As the paper battle unfurled it looked like a plot out of a modern CIC and we saved some of the more epic battles for later reference - along with the ones that required a referee fiat in order to establish precedent later.

Those were the days as well when we actually used miniatures and measured out the ranges for personal combat, too. We factored in cover armor values, spillover fire, danger spaces, and all sorts of things that weren't covered until Striker or MT combat.

Those are long gone in that the last couple of groups I've had have either been so blasted by short attention span video game mechanics and movies, or just can't get it as to why vector movement is more realistic than zooming around like in Star Wars (even the current iteration of Boredomstar Galaxitive made some effort by showing the 3-D aspect of space combat including attitude thrusters for the small craft).

It's a shame, they miss out on the gravity well mechanics, slingshot maneuvers, out-running missiles (as a petty revenge I just say missiles hit unless sand or chaff has been fired the previous turn - no out-running missiles), and all those fun things.