Using skills instead of computer programs in ship combat

[mike wightman]

It just struck me that the computer program rules provide a way for allowing skill levels to replace computer programs in ship combat.

Instead of loading the predict program the navigator makes a throw and the degree of success determines the bonus, instead of loading the multi-target program the gunner makes a throw and degree of success determines number of targets that can be engaged that turn - that sort of thing.

This may increase player engagement during ship combat...

 

[Condottiere]

Have you considered hiring a manic depressive as pilot?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Have you considered hiring a manic depressive as pilot?

Wait ... they come in different flavors??

 

[whartung]

I don't recommend the banana flavored ones.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I don't recommend the banana flavored ones.

Good point. You want the banana flavored ones working comms.
Bananaphone (Youtube)

"It's cellular, it's modular, it's interactive-odular."

 

[mike wightman]

My thoughts so far.
Saving throw 8+, +DM skill level (effect is difference between 8 and dice roll + DM)

Navigation effect result	bonus to hit
0-1	+1
2-3	+2
4+	+3

Something along these lines.
A gunner can choose a bonus to hit, selective fire or multi target as their option.
Multi-target:

Gunnery effect result	penalty to hit
0-1	-2
2-3	-1
4+	0

Select

Gunnery effect result	number of targets
0-1	2
2-3	3
4+	4

 

[mike wightman]

Is there a way to resize the tables?

 

[Condottiere]

Bananas?


1. Astronaut

2. Power plant engineer

3. Slip drive engineer

 

[mike wightman]

I should add that these house rules mesh very nicely with the hidden ship combat system.
Anyway - for pilot/ship's boat skill:

pilot/ship's boat effect result	DM to being hit
0-1	-1
2-3	-2
4+	-3

 

[Spinward Flow]

Is there a way to resize the tables?

No, they automatically adjust to fill the available width of posts.
You can "hack" the width displayed (kinda) by adding extra empty columns, although it doesn't look that good when you do.

 

[McPerth]

While the concept of more use of skills is always interesting, IMHO it also has many (unintended?) consequences:

• Forfeits (to a degree) the difference among ships by redeucing (if not outright nullifying de computer advantage) (this may be good or bad, but hafing a merchant as good for combat as a small combat ship may seem wrong to many)
• Makes higher computers a needless luxury in most cases (as long as you can jump with it, why to have more?), so probably reducing the price of many light combat ships
• Makes the game more dice heavy, probably slowing any ship combat, as you must roll tuice for each gunner (for skill effect and to hit), pilot, etc...

There probably are more I don't foresee right now...

 

[mike wightman]

While the concept of more use of skills is always interesting, IMHO it also has many (unintended?) consequences:

• Forfeits (to a degree) the difference among ships by redeucing (if not outright nullifying de computer advantage) (this may be good or bad, but hafing a merchant as good for combat as a small combat ship may seem wrong to many)

The higher model computers will still run programs that are better than PC skill rolls.

• Makes higher computers a needless luxury in most cases (as long as you can jump with it, why to have more?), so probably reducing the price of many light combat ships

See above, to which I will add many of the PC scale ships have a model 2 computer max

• Makes the game more dice heavy, probably slowing any ship combat, as you must roll tuice for each gunner (for skill effect and to hit), pilot, etc...

There probably are more I don't foresee right now...

Allowing each player to do something during a space combat turn is worth the extra roll of 2d per player.

The whole point of this suggestion, along with many of my previous efforts, is to grant player agency - players who are not actively involved get bored and switch off the game, and I have found ship combat to be a real problem in this regard. Rules like this grant player engagement.

 

[Condottiere]

Either the players have extraordinary skillz, or you deliberately bork the computers, or you have a man machine interface like a rigger.

 

[mike wightman]

The point is to give the players something to do during ship combat, which has the potential to end a game through boredom,,,

 

[Condottiere]

If, for example, you're doing a naval campaign with the Imperium, they have the money to afford the latest computers and most sophisticated programmes, and even those have limitations.

At some point, you're going to run out of space for virtual gunners on a Tigress, so they could fill the cracks there, but considering the number of guns involved, it would be sort of meaningless.

So the engagement has to be scaled down, in a spaceship that doesn't have the latest computers.

Or they've achieved Lord status, becoming the Captain, Admiral, Chief Engineer, Chief Gunner, where their above average skills make a difference.

 

[McPerth]

The higher model computers will still run programs that are better than PC skill rolls.

Well, the name of the thread is using skills instead of computer programs, so I unserstand you use one or the other, not both, so,as I understand, the computer loses much its influence.

If you can still use the computer programs, as you say, it will usually be better than the skills (and more than the results as you give here), so I see no advantage of using them...

Another point is that you gave tables for the success range, but what would happen if they fail the roll?

Allowing each player to do something during a space combat turn is worth the extra roll of 2d per player.

The whole point of this suggestion, along with many of my previous efforts, is to grant player agency - players who are not actively involved get bored and switch off the game, and I have found ship combat to be a real problem in this regard. Rules like this grant player engagement.

I'm afraid this depend on the party size and gams situation. In many instances (not only ship combat) you will have players who are active and other ones that are not, and that is part of RPG (as part of real life)

 

[mike wightman]

Well, the name of the thread is using skills instead of computer programs, so I unserstand you use one or the other, not both, so,as I understand, the computer loses much its influence.

The idea is you can use computer programs or character skill - using skill instead of a program does not mean dumping the programs rules.

If you can still use the computer programs, as you say, it will usually be better than the skills (and more than the results as you give here), so I see no advantage of using them...

The advantage is it gives players playing the game something to do during ship combat.

Another point is that you gave tables for the success range, but what would happen if they fail the roll?

Then they don't get the bonus that turn.

I'm afraid this depend on the party size and gams situation. In many instances (not only ship combat) you will have players who are active and other ones that are not, and that is part of RPG (as part of real life)

I guess we run very different games.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Seems like the most obvious solution is:

• Use computer model OR character skill ... whichever is HIGHER.

Now, such an interpretation means that you stop adding computer model and skills together (which changes the LBB2 and LBB5 systems a bit), but ultimately that isn't really a problem for ship to ship combat. What happens is that higher computer models wind up applying a "floor" for the +/- DM factors, meaning that you need increasingly higher skills to exceed the capacity of the computer models.

In other words, low computer model numbers have a low "floor" which is easy for crew skills to exceed ... while a high computer model number has a high "floor" which is difficult for crew skills to exceed.

So let's take the most obvious examples of the spectrum ... the model/1 and the model/9 ... and game out the differences.

• With a model/1 computer, any crew skill of 2+ exceeds the model/1 computer's input, so crew skills become highly relevant at skill levels 2+ for whatever role those crew are in.
• With a model/9 computer, the crew will need to have a skill of 10+ in order to exceed the model/9 computer's input, so crew skills become substantially irrelevant at skill levels 1-9 (assuming no damage to the computer during combat).

What you wind up with then is a "levelizing of skills through automation" game mechanic dependent upon the sophistication of the computer model involved.

Note that this also means that highly skilled crews become MORE important in smaller ships with lower computer models than they do in high end ships with very high computer models. With more computer sophistication it becomes more of a challenge for the crew's skills to exceed what the computer can do (for them) in a variety of ways relevant to ship to ship combat.

More illustration of the point.

Suppose we had a crew with skills all at level 3 relevant to their station (pilot, gunner) in a combat.

On a ship with a model/1 computer (let's say a Scout/Courier with a model/1bis just for shizzle), this would make a tremendous difference. Instead of using a -1 to be hit due to the computer model, the ship would use a -3 to be hit because of the pilot's skill.
Likewise, instead of using a +1 to hit due to the computer model, the ship would use a +3 to hit because of the gunner's skill.

But on a ship with a model/3 computer ... those pilot-3 and gunnery-3 skills wouldn't make any difference at all, unless the computer gets damaged and has to function as a model/1 or model/2.

Skills such as Ship Tactics could function as a sort of "hybrid" between the two systems.
If Ship Tactics exceeds computer model number, then use Ship Tactics in lieu of computer model number.
If computer model number exceeds Ship Tactics, then use the LBB5 system of Ship Tactics/2-1 (drop fractions) gets added to the computer model number (so Ship Tactics-3 used with a model/4 computer effectively becomes a model/4 computer due to player skill).

The same type of "hybrid" system (if skill>model then do A else B) using the Skill/2-1 system used in LBB5 ship-to-ship combat as a way for crew skills to remain "relevant" even if vastly outclassed by computer model numbers.



So there's 2 different schemes for how to make crew skills more relevant in ship to ship combat that addresses both the low end and high end of the skill and computer model numbers scaling. Note that which scheme is chosen (the OR scheme or the Hybrid scheme) becomes a much more interesting distinction when dealing with a "skills rich" versus "skills sparse" style of character generation.

 

[mike wightman]

My aim is to adapt what is present in CT , not re-write whole rule systems (although I have certainly done so in the past).

The aim is to giver every player something for his or her character to do during ship combat. I have based this on what the computer programs can do and looked to the level of skill required to write the program.

For a free trader or scout with a model 1 or 2 computer they may find trusting to skill is the only option since their computer isn't good enough for the higher bonuses.

The mid-range computers may be able to run every high end combat program at the same time which means these rules may not be needed as the player can be overseeing the computer program and making decisions.

 

[Spinward Flow]

My aim is to adapt what is present in CT

That only works if the contents of CT are ... Ideal ... Perfect ... lacking room for anything better.
That only works if it is NOT POSSIBLE to do better than CT.

The aim is to giver every player something for his or her character to do during ship combat.

And in order to do that, you will need to rewrite CT.
Sorry.
Why?
Because CT doesn't make all ship related skills relevant during combat.



And just to be clear, I find the LBB2 computer programs for ships systems incredibly clunky, to the point of being obnoxious and cumbersome. That's not an ideal game design from a standpoint of usability ... kind of like how the vector system for space combat in LBB2 is not an ideal for tabletop game design (unless you're wargaming with miniatures). The computer programming rules in LBB2 "work" (after a fashion) but they aren't all that extendable (without rewriting the rules of CT) to account for additional weapons introduced later (plasma, fusion, particle accelerators, meson guns) and a whole host of other factors like screens (nuclear dampeners, meson screens, black globes) and ship sizes above 5000 tons. So the computer programming rules in LBB2 are ... limited ... and you can't overcome that limitation without (drum roll please) ... rewriting them in such a way as to make them more expansive and also less clunky/cumbersome to use.

Nature of the beast, I'm afraid.