Which CT Combat System to Use?

[Golan2072]

There are several combat systems available for Classic Traveller. There are Book 1 and its variant in Snapshot on one hand, and Azhanti High Lightning and its vast expansion as Striker on the other. All have their advantages and disadvantages.

The Book 1 system is the most "classic" system in existence. It is simple, fast and elegant, with damage going to the target's attributes. However, it requires several combat matrices, and tracking the attribute damage of multiple targets (say, in a large boarding action) might be a bit tedious. Also, high modifiers tend to "break" the 2d6 curve, and an auto-rifle, for example, might be a bit too accurate under that system. Also, vehicles are not included in the system, though the Mithril/Bright Face double adventure has some rules for them.

AHL/Striker uses Penetration vs. Armour, and each shot is resolved by a roll on a simple table. There are no combat matrices, and it is very easy to track wounds for multiple targets, However, what worries me about this system is that a single shot could kill a PC; while very realistic, it might be a tad too deadly for a game.

What do you think about this subject?

 

[Mithras]

I get the feeling you will find many people have a mish-mash. I use Book 1, but strip out the matrices. It's a slimmed down version of Book 1. Fast, no looking up tables, how I like it

 

[BytePro]

Rules as written may be great for tournaments, but even then, custom rules may be desirable.

Pick a system or parts of systems and make up your own - to support the level of roleplay vs rolling and 'realism' that appeals to you. If you like striker except for the 'deadliness', it shouldn't be hard to make it less lethal in the more extreme cases.

One of the most enjoyable I've played (not Traveller, but a free-form sci-fi) used simply a roll under stat (1d6 in that case) with no DMs and all 'injury' tracked as wounds, not as points. The outcome depended on the situation - i.e. type of attack, armor, range, cover, darkness, etc. might affect what a successful or failed attack really means. Since it is more flexible - the 'realism' can be as good or cinematic as one desires.

That was very roleplay focused, with a little variation for individuals. But, I can see it working for Traveller by factoring in skill level - either as a DM or for allowing more player control over outcome such as called or trick shots, etc. A more structured approach might include defined levels of success and failure (ala MgT).

Defined mechanics covering initiative, timing and range, etc. along with DMs are great and all, and I love coming up with them and have no problem with the math - but, practically, they seem to take away from the focus and slow the roleplay down, with the added disadvantage of creating preconceived limits in play.

 

[Tobias]

There are several combat systems available for Classic Traveller. There are Book 1 and its variant in Snapshot on one hand, and Azhanti High Lightning and its vast expansion as Striker on the other. All have their advantages and disadvantages.

The Book 1 system is the most "classic" system in existence. It is simple, fast and elegant, with damage going to the target's attributes. However, it requires several combat matrices, and tracking the attribute damage of multiple targets (say, in a large boarding action) might be a bit tedious. Also, high modifiers tend to "break" the 2d6 curve, and an auto-rifle, for example, might be a bit too accurate under that system. Also, vehicles are not included in the system, though the Mithril/Bright Face double adventure has some rules for them.

AHL/Striker uses Penetration vs. Armour, and each shot is resolved by a roll on a simple table. There are no combat matrices, and it is very easy to track wounds for multiple targets, However, what worries me about this system is that a single shot could kill a PC; while very realistic, it might be a tad too deadly for a game.

What do you think about this subject?

I'd prefer a mish-mash. The combat system is the one thing I have never been completely happy with in any version of Traveller. I tend to use the AHL/Striker system because it is simpler and because separating hitting and penetrating armor into different rolls makes more sense to me than rolling them into one.

I do like the idea that one hit can kill you in AHL/Striker, but then again, it's a little too likely - and more importantly it's too radically dependent on armor. A gauss rifle will kill an unarmored human in 83% of the cases, but wear cloth armor and it drops to 16%.

 

[aramis]

I always preferred striker to Bk 1. See, I detest having to use a big table in play. Let alone two separate ones per each attack as is the case with Bk 1.

Now, knowing that the striker damage table essentially is 3 positions, it could be expanded better to be dice damage...

8-11 are 3d
12-15 are 6D
16+ are dead...

So, what I did was smooth it out
08 1D
09 2D
10 3D
11 4D
12 5D
13 6D
14 7D
15 8D
16 9D
etc...

And then used the damage modifier as a bonus per die.
It improved things for compatibility, and made the game run much faster for me. Yes, damage was 2d+Pen-AV-7=DiceDamage

Quick and painless.

 

[Dragoner]

The Book 1 system is the most "classic" system in existence. It is simple, fast and elegant, with damage going to the target's attributes. However, it requires several combat matrices, and tracking the attribute damage of multiple targets (say, in a large boarding action) might be a bit tedious. Also, high modifiers tend to "break" the 2d6 curve, and an auto-rifle, for example, might be a bit too accurate under that system. Also, vehicles are not included in the system, though the Mithril/Bright Face double adventure has some rules for them.

I use Bk1 & Bk4 with just meters range (w/800 meters as extreme range for rifle and auto rifle) and then for vehicles Bk2 starship combat with range as meters as well and the non-starship damage table. After a while one can memorize the tables and doesn't have to look too much.

 

[Icosahedron]

As I said in Golan's Poll on this topic, I'm still looking.
I think most people houserule them, as none have the 'Goldilocks Factor'.

BytePro, I'd be interested in details of that system you describe. I could maybe incorporate some of that in my current swordplay development.

I'll ponder Aramis' system, too. Thanks.

 

[BytePro]

...
One of the most enjoyable I've played (not Traveller, but a free-form sci-fi) used simply a roll under stat (1d6 in that case) with no DMs and all 'injury' tracked as wounds, not as points. The outcome depended on the situation - i.e. type of attack, armor, range, cover, darkness, etc. might affect what a successful or failed attack really means. Since it is more flexible - the 'realism' can be as good or cinematic as one desires.

That was basically the whole shebang. Roll under stat - and 'succeed'.

It was very roleplay focused, so accounting for specifics was up to the roleplay - which is handled by what the success and failures specifically are. Description replaced 'points' and 'reasonable' roleplay replaced turn/timing mechanics.

Ex: Success when shooting at a battledressed wearing trooper with a 'hand gun' -> the bullet is extremely unlikely to directly injure the wearer, but could result in 'halting' his attack. So maybe you hit that unmaintained wrist joint just right and he cannot fire or release his weapon, that is if he is too far away to just reach out and swat ya... otherwise maybe you got an ankle joint instead, halting him and messing up his shot. Of course, you better run away or think of something better pretty quick.

Ex: Success when 'attacking' same with golf ball -> well, you've got to be kidding... which results in a logical 'outcome' - the trooper is so overcome with mirth that he momentarily chokes on his own laughter, causing him to mis-control his suit which prevents him from firing... (or maybe the ball landed just right under the edge of an armored boot, causing him to fall flat on his armored cushioning). Again, run away real quick like, or be prepared for the fact that this is but momentary success.

To differentiate these two, the bullet may have taken out the usefulness of the firing wrist for the rest of combat, whereas the golf ball trick just delayed the use. Such would be reflected in any later 'success' from the trooper.

(Failure in any of these two situations might not be pretty...)

Of course, this simple mechanic results in the same probabilities for success regardless of the situation. So the success is where everything has to be taken into account - and that requires imagination. But, it is very, very flexible (be as 'realistic' or cinematic as you want).

As mentioned, one might want to add degrees of success and failure - like exceptional success (the golf ball caused the trooper not only to trip, but caused his suit to powerdown due to a glitch in its diagnostic software) or exceptional failure (the golf ball bounced off the troopers helmet, flying right back and nailing you in the temple - knocking you the #$%@ out!).

With that 1d6 game, I wouldn't add any DMs for skill or the like, because of the equal chance nature of the rolls. For higher dice counts, I'd probably allow skill and stat DMs with degrees of outcome (ala MgT) against a fixed value instead of the stat under roll - but account for all other situational DMs via roleplay.

Accounting for injuries does not require DMs or the like, just the nature of the 'success' changes. I.e., if one loses his normal firing arm (literally), then any success with the other is going to be less effective. Of course, if one loses both arms (*and is wearing boots - hehe), then there will be no roll for firing the weapon - or a separate roll first to see if the weapon will fire from say, impact (if the Ref allows such).

I was surprised how well that simple system worked - but it could have been just the Ref and players involved... I've yet to ref a game with such simple 'mechanics'.

 

[Tobias]

Also, high modifiers tend to "break" the 2d6 curve, and an auto-rifle, for example, might be a bit too accurate under that system.

This is one of my major problems with LBB1 as well - especially if you take into account the new weapons from LBB4.
A quick fix I'd apply is not to add the modifiers for armor and range together, but use the worse of the two. That curbs (somewhat) the insanely high modifiers vs. most types of armor that the Gauss Rifle gets.

 

[Golan2072]

This is one of my major problems with LBB1 as well - especially if you take into account the new weapons from LBB4.
A quick fix I'd apply is not to add the modifiers for armor and range together, but use the worse of the two. That curbs (somewhat) the insanely high modifiers vs. most types of armor that the Gauss Rifle gets.

I remember reading a forum post a LONG time ago to the effect that most LBB1 weapons did not "break" the curve, while most LBB4 ones did. Am I correct?

 

[Tobias]

I remember reading a forum post a LONG time ago to the effect that most LBB1 weapons did not "break" the curve, while most LBB4 ones did. Am I correct?

Partly.
In LBB1 already, a shotgun or submachinegun would automatically hit every unarmored target at medium range, even if the target was evading. It was similar with the auto rifle and a few other weapons. In LBB4, this was just more common.

The culprit: The high positive modifiers against light or no armor. Another quick fix to remedy this would be to ignore all positive DMs due to armor, and only take the negative ones into account. Also, don't use the "autofire" DM vs armor, only vs range.

I'm not sure which one of these fixes I'd use. The first one (use the worse of the two) has the advantage that you do not need to change any printed combat matrices. You can just tell your players "Use the lower of the two values" and that's that. The second one may be more realistic and mechanically sound though.

 

[Golan2072]

In LBB1 already, a shotgun or submachinegun would automatically hit every unarmored target at medium range, even if the target was evading. It was similar with the auto rifle and a few other weapons. In LBB4, this was just more common.

The culprit: The high positive modifiers against light or no armor. Another quick fix to remedy this would be to ignore all positive DMs due to armor, and only take the negative ones into account. Also, don't use the "autofire" DM vs armor, only vs range.

I'm not sure which one of these fixes I'd use. The first one (use the worse of the two) has the advantage that you do not need to change any printed combat matrices. You can just tell your players "Use the lower of the two values" and that's that. The second one may be more realistic and mechanically sound though.

So, essentially, you're saying that if we remove all positive DMs due to armour, the combat system will no longer "break" the 2d6 curve. Am I correct?

 

[Tobias]

So, essentially, you're saying that if we remove all positive DMs due to armour, the combat system will no longer "break" the 2d6 curve. Am I correct?

I'd say so, yes. Mind you, you will still have weapons which will almost automatically hit a character in the open at most ranges. But that is probably more or less justified, especially in the case of support weapons like the VRF Gauss Gun.
I'd still do something about the Gauss Rifle's odd DMs which make it hit better at long range than at medium range (probably just switch them around), and you'd have to look into the DMs for Scopes (way too high), but otherwise that should work.
If you do this, the best positive DM you could get with a man-portable weapon would be at about +5. That is still a pretty hefty modifier on 2d6 (and skill + Dex still add to it), but it can be counteracted by negative DMs and it does not entirely break the system like the +12 DM a Gauss Rifle firing at an unarmored target at 200 Meters got.

Oh yeah, and I'd probably reduce the DM for advantageous Dex to +1 for all weapons. I don't see the logic in the +2 DMs.

 

[Dragoner]

I like the Gauss Rifle's effectiveness and other BK 4 weapons for realism's sake (grenades in room to room combat are a prime example), people often forget the 3rd way; that of the morale check and surrender, very real occurances in combat situations. Organized militaries will take prisoners over shooting them very often, and the role playing situation of either being taken prisoner or dealing with prisoners is golden.

 

[Tobias]

I like the Gauss Rifle's effectiveness and other BK 4 weapons for realism's sake

I don't think it's particularly realistic that any kind of rifle is guaranteed to hit every target (even if evading or under cover) at several hundred meters even when fired by a total novice. And that is exactly how the Gauss Rifle works with LBB1/4.

 

[Dragoner]

I don't think it's particularly realistic that any kind of rifle is guaranteed to hit every target (even if evading or under cover) at several hundred meters even when fired by a total novice. And that is exactly how the Gauss Rifle works with LBB1/4.

From my own experience, at under 100 meters with my AK or M16, or at up to about 300 meters with my 30-06, it would be very odd if I didn't hit my target. I once shot two deer because one jumped up from the brush and I thought it was the one I had just shot.

Cover should provide protection by it's name, concealment is different, it doesn't provide cover.

Most combat distances, which I draw from my father who was in ww2, Korea and Vietnam or my uncle Hannes who was in the German Army at the Litsa Bridgehead by Murmansk in ww2 and other family who have experienced combat; most ranges are at extreme, one is shooting at what is just a tiny dot; and the biggest casualty causers are artillery and mines. A gauss riffle should be very deadly close up, more deadly than my TL7 guns, but at extreme range versus armored troops, which as it should be, it just forces the enemy to ground, suppression in fact. The number one casualty causer of coalition troops today are IED's, testament to the fact than the ranges for personal combat are a long way off, it's the ambush that is most deadly. LBB1's suprise factors take this into account, and a suprised enemy or being suprised is very bad, one often gets thrown into a situation that deteriorates quickly into fight and die or surrender and hope for to live, just like reality.

 

[Tobias]

Most combat distances, which I draw from my father who was in ww2, Korea and Vietnam or my uncle Hannes who was in the German Army at the Litsa Bridgehead by Murmansk in ww2 and other family who have experienced combat; most ranges are at extreme, one is shooting at what is just a tiny dot;

AFAIK that's pretty much the opposite of what post-WW2 analysts have concluded. Hence, assault rifles.

A gauss riffle should be very deadly close up, more deadly than my TL7 guns, but at extreme range versus armored troops, which as it should be, it just forces the enemy to ground, suppression in fact.

By the rules, it's deadlier far away than close up. And it's only slightly less effective against armored troops. The chance of missing a CES-armored target at long range is negligible. (If the target is taking cover or evading. Otherwise it's zero.)

LBB1's suprise factors take this into account, and a suprised enemy or being suprised is very bad, one often gets thrown into a situation that deteriorates quickly into fight and die or surrender and hope for to live, just like reality.

In reality, firefights are frequently extremely long, drawn-out affairs where ammunition reserves become a very real factor.

All these considerations aside, it's not particularly fun for me if...
- Character skills are unimportant (it doesn't matter if you're a crack shot or have never seen a rifle before if you get DMs this high.)
- All non-ambush fights between reasonably well-armed groups automatically end in mutual annihilation... unless you throw out LBB's combat procedure, but even then...
- All close-quarters fighting is instant slaughter unless you bring battle dress.

P.S.: It's not just the Gauss Rifles, anyway... I'll be the first to admit that I was not exactly a crack shot in the Army, but I doubt that even better shooters would be able to guarantee hitting a target every time at 500 meters with an unscoped G-3. Or take a Light Machine Gun, another weapon that basically cannot miss an unarmored target.

 

[Dragoner]

AFAIK that's pretty much the opposite of what post-WW2 analysts have concluded. Hence, assault rifles.

WW2 analysts found that small arms are responsible for only 2-3% of casualties (by the multi-volume US history), thus the assault rifle, basically a carbine, because being a rifleman is not that important, though the current wars have changed that mindset to some degree.

By the rules, it's deadlier far away than close up. And it's only slightly less effective against armored troops. The chance of missing a CES-armored target at long range is negligible. (If the target is taking cover or evading. Otherwise it's zero.)

I would say it's a function of it's sights, I can hit things with rifles pretty easy and I would call myself average.

In reality, firefights are frequently extremely long, drawn-out affairs where ammunition reserves become a very real factor.

I've heard different, they are actually quite short and if the last long enough, another arms generally horns its way in, usually artillery but sometimes tanks; and when tanks hit the field everyone stops what they were shooting at before and start shooting at them. But from what I've heard, often troops shoot at nothing because they get spooked.

All these considerations aside, it's not particularly fun for me if...
- Character skills are unimportant (it doesn't matter if you're a crack shot or have never seen a rifle before if you get DMs this high.)
- All non-ambush fights between reasonably well-armed groups automatically end in mutual annihilation... unless you throw out LBB's combat procedure, but even then...
- All close-quarters fighting is instant slaughter unless you bring battle dress.

The thing I try to impress on players is that battle is deadly (esp close quarters battle where a commander can expect to lose 50% of his forces in casulties in short order; the US Army's Field Manual on Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain's first advice is to bypass built up areas. Thus the real lethal weapon is one's mind, set up ambush positions, fire and move, use tactics, don't just build one set of entrenchments but three, if you get seen, pop smoke and get to cover. Battle is the terrifying 15 seconds upon which luck will make you victor or prisoner, the GR may even up the odds, but don't expect the enemy just to let you shoot them.

 

[Tobias]

WW2 analysts found that small arms are responsible for only 2-3% of casualties (by the multi-volume US history), thus the assault rifle,

The assault rifle is a direct result of the experience (by the German army) that infantry combat usually took place at ranges shorter than that of typical rifles.

I've heard different, they are actually quite short and if the last long enough,

One recent example involving our forces in Afghanistan was an encounter lasting about nine hours.

 

[Dragoner]

The assault rifle is a direct result of the experience (by the German army) that infantry combat usually took place at ranges shorter than that of typical rifles.

The StG44, was made more due to simplicity than effectiveness, the K98 was the main infantry small arm right until the final surrender (even as very poorly made Kriegs Gewehr). Small arms theory is that a mix of small arms helps when ambushed or in close quarters (thus the American M2 Carbine or Soviet SKS45 and AK47) and it is far easier for an inexperienced or less well trained soldier to use effectively in battle. There is also the information that an average rifleman is as likely to drop his rifle as he is to shoot it; crew served weapons are much more effective. Here the often overlooked morale check seems relevant.

One recent example involving our forces in Afghanistan was an encounter lasting about nine hours.

Interesting, however, I would wager that the ROE prevented them from bringing in heavier firepower.