• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

What Traveller space combat game have you played since January 2014?

What Traveller space combat systems have you played since January 2014?


  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .

robject

SOC-14 10K
Admin Award
Marquis
Another poll. This time, if you've played any licensed Traveller space combat games since January 2014, let everyone know it.
 
Last edited:
Plus a equal amount of Full Trust without the High Guard mask.

Planning a couple of rounds of Mayday/High Guard, in that the rules for using Maydays movement with High Guard combat resolution is in the Maydays rules set.

Plus the yet un-played Mayday/Book 2/Special Supplement 3/MgT Mash up.
 
I've used MT several times, but modified from the formal rules. The actions have involved smaller ships (typically under 2000 tons and usually under 1000) in a combat action.
 
lots of HG builds but no shooting. Does that count?

I don't think so, but it's Rob's survey.

Two reasons...

First, I'll note that a lot of cool HG-designs are utterly lame in HG combat. Pretty much anything below 1000 Td is almost worthless. Including Fighters (unless you use either the JTAS-14 rules or another squadron formation option).

Second, HG designs are, except for computers and airframes, the same in T20 and CT Bk 5. But the design system choice (CT, MT, T20) makes far less difference than which combat system you're using. And the same stats and tables can be used interchangeably with the CT Bk5, MT, or T20 combat mechanics. And each of those is a different application of the same stats. (Oh, and MT designs work in Bk 5 combat just fine. And in T20 combat. Just use the correct USP values.)
 
I don't think so, but it's Rob's survey.

Two reasons...

First, I'll note that a lot of cool HG-designs are utterly lame in HG combat. Pretty much anything below 1000 Td is almost worthless. Including Fighters (unless you use either the JTAS-14 rules or another squadron formation option).

Second, HG designs are, except for computers and airframes, the same in T20 and CT Bk 5. But the design system choice (CT, MT, T20) makes far less difference than which combat system you're using. And the same stats and tables can be used interchangeably with the CT Bk5, MT, or T20 combat mechanics. And each of those is a different application of the same stats. (Oh, and MT designs work in Bk 5 combat just fine. And in T20 combat. Just use the correct USP values.)

Aramis regarding High Guard... this is why smaller ships need to cooperate in their targeting against larger ships and combine their attacks and target targets on the large ships they can hit.. like the engines and weapons bays... or even the launch docks and tubes. Also Escorts in how they are designed perhaps need to break up their batteries into lower level but more batteries--so they can be effective at killing a lot of small attack ships.

Also Escorts and the 2kt> size ships are great at hitting and killing the Auxiliaries ships and merchants that support Squadrons and Fleet operations. Also they are great at going after commerce and effecting the enemies ability to support fleet ops and wage war.
 
First, I'll note that a lot of cool HG-designs are utterly lame in HG combat. Pretty much anything below 1000 Td is almost worthless. Including Fighters (unless you use either the JTAS-14 rules or another squadron formation option).


I would agree re: the published rules, as I have said before, I think the game is recreating the Imperium view of starship combat and as such the Big Bad Battleship is not vulnerable to the smaller stuff.

Good thing I can monkey with rules to change to taste huh.
 
But the design system choice (CT, MT, T20) makes far less difference than which combat system you're using.

Which has always been my nit, as the design system should be built around the combat system. This was my plea from day one for T5: that they figure out the combat system and then build a design system to work with it, since in actual hard dice rolling gaming terms, the combat system is all that matters, everything else is playing house.

In that sense, the best system out there is TNE and Brilliant Lances, since it's basically Striker in Space -- damage and penetration vs armor, with a few tweaks for Meson guns. It's as "hard science" as you're going to get, and completely flexible. (Want extra armor around the combat operations center? With it's own dedicated power supply? You got it.) It also has very few breakpoints the dramatically change the dynamics of combat.

The dark side is the flexibility breeds complexity and accounting. Battle Rider addressed that by focusing on large systems and a crit-centric damage system.

As but even other systems like Starfire and SFB show that large ships make up a lot of data, are hard to fly, and hard to kill. In BR, every ship was a card flip from a mission kill. Everything else, you have to burn the ship down, piece by piece, like a candle.

But designing ships without regard to the combat system is a bad idea.
 
...designing ships without regard to the combat system is a bad idea.

I agree, and Don McKinney is a big proponent of this, but with Traveller there is prior art that can give you a pretty good idea as to how both design and combat "sorta" work. Especially design. It's not as good as doing it right, but it gets you a long way.
 
I have played "with" or "at" Traveller5 space combat, but I have not played through a space combat scenario with T5. Even less so with Battle Rider and Mayday and High Guard 2.

So, I selected "none".
 
Back
Top