Which CT Combat System to Use?

[aramis]

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.


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

Which is an exceptional situation.

A typical police shootout is under 2 minutes.

The average firefight in the 'Nam was under 15 min from first shot to last. There were several that lasted many hours, but they were exceptional, and that's why they made the news.

Moreover, most of those so-called "long firefights" really are a series of multiple shorter exchanges of fire (a few minutes apiece) with 15-30 minutes between such exchanges.

Very much the same way most boxing matches are not 20 minutes of pounding once a second, but alternation of 2-10 seconds of circling and waiting for an opening, then 1-4 seconds of 3-5 strikes per second.

 

[Tobias]

Which is an exceptional situation.

Sure it is, although in Afghanistan, long battles are rather common. But even a short engagement, as you noted yourself, usually lasts several minutes. Firefights under Book 2, especially if fought at close range, will last exactly 15 seconds unless the participants are heavily armored - which combatants were neither in WW2 nor in Vietnam.

But seriously, if you think that the LBB1 rules are a) a realistic simulation of a firefight and b) fun, I'd advise you to just play a few encounters with unarmored participants at medium or long range by the book and see how they work out.

I know why I'm not using these rules unmodified but prefer the AHL/Striker rules which don't hand out +8 DMs like they were nothing.

 

[aramis]

Sure it is, although in Afghanistan, long battles are rather common. But even a short engagement, as you noted yourself, usually lasts several minutes. Firefights under Book 2, especially if fought at close range, will last exactly 15 seconds unless the participants are heavily armored - which combatants were neither in WW2 nor in Vietnam.

But seriously, if you think that the LBB1 rules are a) a realistic simulation of a firefight and b) fun, I'd advise you to just play a few encounters with unarmored participants at medium or long range by the book and see how they work out.

I know why I'm not using these rules unmodified but prefer the AHL/Striker rules which don't hand out +8 DMs like they were nothing.

I think you are using firefight in a different manner than I am.

For me, it's usually bordering on synonymous with "engagement"

Taking the case of a game of snapshot... on, say, a fat trader map. I board via the front ramp, and also via the port aft airlock. You have guys in the cargo bay, and in portside engineering. That's 2 separate firefights. At least, so long as you don't escape the engineers into the cargo bay.

The news would probably lump them as a single one... As well as the resulting engagement on the upper deck later on... 3 hours later, when I finally cut through the lock mechanisms... but others would count 2 or 3 separate firefights in that battle.

CT, under Bk1, Mayday, AHL, or Striker, suffers badly from the "continuous action" paradigm...

Modern weapons tend to be fired for 5-15 shots per minute per soldier... but not steadily. Small clusters of fire. Periods of waiting. Often long periods o waiting.

Video from the "9 Hour Firefight" likely would show periods of up to 5 minutes of pretty much nothing happening at all, followed by someone moving, the other side firing, and the moving person returning to cover. One battle, yes... but one firefight? I think not.

And all of them have hit probability issues when dealing with PC's.

Real world numbers show police typically miss at close ranges far more than is desirable... about 34%... if we presume that 38% is Pistol 1, then rounding up, Pistol 1 should hit on 8+, and Pistol 0 on 9+... Given that Pistol 0 hits on 8+ in Bk1, Mayday, Striker, and AHL... but fails to account for range effects (which we don't have the data on... as range to target isn't in the published shot statistics, and even if it were, it can't be reliably given for many police shootings).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

 

[Tobias]

Modern weapons tend to be fired for 5-15 shots per minute per soldier... but not steadily. Small clusters of fire. Periods of waiting. Often long periods o waiting.

Actually, Traveller's rather long combat rounds (compared to systems like, say, Shadowrun) take this into account fairly well. I mean, it's obvious that you can fire a rifle more often than once every 15 seconds.

Real world numbers show police typically miss at close ranges far more than is desirable... about 34%... if we presume that 38% is Pistol 1, then rounding up, Pistol 1 should hit on 8+, and Pistol 0 on 9+... Given that Pistol 0 hits on 8+ in Bk1, Mayday, Striker, and AHL

Sorry, but it doesn't make much sense to discuss this if we are not taking into account the actual rules. If you're saying we cannot discuss range modifiers because we have no solid data about range, then we cannot discuss LBB1 rules.
Matter of fact, Pistol-0 does not hit on 8+. It hits on various rolls, depending on what armor the target is wearing.

Oh by the way, to illustrate another problem with the LBB1 rules:
Firing at an unarmored, evading target with Auto Pistol-0 at 5 meters has a chance of 58% to hit the target. Firing at the same target at 10 meters (or, for sake of argument, at 5.1 meters) has a chance of 0% to hit the target.
This problem is to some degree shared by all Traveller combat systems, but LBB1 is the worst (MegaTraveller second worst, Striker/AHL best.)

Again, I can only urge you to try this out in practice a few times. Preferably with players who will play the system to their advantage. The results are likely to be sobering.

 

[Tobias]

To sum up my problems with the various Traveller combat systems...

LBB1
Major:
- DMs, especially due to armor, breaking the die scale.
- Far too easy to hit for many weapons due to this.
- Extreme cut-off points for range DMs.
- Turn order and simultaneous fire.
- Reliance on matrices.
- No integration of vehicles.
Minor:
- Typical weapon hits will incapacitate almost always, but almost never kill.

MT
Major:
- Extreme cut-off points for ranges and penetration.
- Point-based hits do not mesh well with vehicles and spacecraft.
Minor:
- Turn order and initiative leave something to be desired.
- One-roll system occasionally produces odd results.

STRIKER/AHL:
Major:
- Penetration/armor does not scale well with the damage table. (STRIKER only.)
- No integration of vehicles. (AHL only, duh.)
Minor:
- Capacity to sustain damage independent of characteristics.
- Turn order and initiative leave something to be desired.

 

[Golan2072]

STRIKER/AHL:
Major:
- Penetration/armor does not scale well with the damage table. (STRIKER only.)
Minor:
- Capacity to sustain damage independent of characteristics.
- Turn order and initiative leave something to be desired.

So, essentially, you're saying that AHL, unlike Striker, has no major problems to your playing style, only minor ones?

 

[Tobias]

Actually, I just forgot one thing: AHL does not integrate vehicles. But basically, I did like AHL the best, which is why I used it when I still played CT.

 

[Golan2072]

So, AHL+Vehicles would be the perfect system for you?

 

[Dragoner]

Sure it is, although in Afghanistan, long battles are rather common. But even a short engagement, as you noted yourself, usually lasts several minutes. Firefights under Book 2, especially if fought at close range, will last exactly 15 seconds unless the participants are heavily armored - which combatants were neither in WW2 nor in Vietnam.

But seriously, if you think that the LBB1 rules are a) a realistic simulation of a firefight and b) fun, I'd advise you to just play a few encounters with unarmored participants at medium or long range by the book and see how they work out.

I know why I'm not using these rules unmodified but prefer the AHL/Striker rules which don't hand out +8 DMs like they were nothing.

Why unarmored? The GR is about 50% better than the AR (and 6 TL's higher), versus unarmored targets, but it's irrelevant because you have already hit. LBB1 doesn't give any bonuses for going over your die roll (though house rule I usually add 2 critical miss and 12 as a critical hit). I've played the LBB1 CT system quite a bit, I don't find it that bad, it has alot to offer, though it depends on how one plays it, the most deadly man portable weapon in Bk4 isn't the GR but the LMG: 5 10 round bursts per turn, think of that versus medium range unarmored targets, it's just murder; but then so are a lot of things and how you play it is role playing.

 

[McPerth]

MT
Major:
- Extreme cut-off points for ranges and penetration.
- Point-based hits do not mesh well with vehicles and spacecraft.
Minor:
- Turn order and initiative leave something to be desired.
- One-roll system occasionally produces odd results.

I see another major flaw in MT system with penetration, that I already posted in MT errata:

Today, reviewing Traveller Digest nº 20 Q&A (*), I saw in zero penetration situation damage is given as NE with a note that says vehicles and robots take 10% damage as superstructure hits. So, personnel takes no damage (as long as armor is fully closed) and vehicles/robots 10% damage as superstructure (regardless if its armor is complete or it's not) if their armor is higher than penetration.

This gives us a paradoxal situation:

In a planet with standard atmosphere, we have a zone about 200 m in diameter where there are 6 Trepida Tanks (armor 40) and 15 soldiers in vacc suits (armor 5). (Trepidas took most of the budget and there was not money for better personal armor...).

A starship acting as ortillery support fires a factor 7 PA against them, hitting the center of the zone (standard hit, rolling just what is needed, so no multipliers for damage, nor automatic hits). Danger space is (factor x 15), so 105 m radius, affecting all the troops.

As atmosphere is denser than trace, penetration for PAs is 0. Of course distance is irrelevant (as long as it is in range), as you can halve 0 as much as you want and it won't change anything. So both troops and tanks are in zero penetration situation.

Damage for PAs is 2000. Troops are fully enclosed by armor, so, as zero penetration rules say, they are unhurt. Tanks are likewise fully enclosed, in zero penetration situation, but, as they are vehicles, they recieve 10% damage (200 hits) each as superstructure hits.

So, after the hit, we have 6 smoking destroyed Trepidas and 15 unhurt infantrymen in vacc suit...

As much as I try, I cannot see any logic in this outcome, and I feel it's against rules spirit to allow PAs to be used as ortillery in atmosphere in first place, and making tanks more vulnerable than lightly armored infantrymen in second place. So I think something is flawed on those rules.

I know it's an extreme situation, but I've always believed extremes are the best to show the flaws in most rules/laws.

STRIKER/AHL:
Major:
- Penetration/armor does not scale well with the damage table. (STRIKER only.)
- No integration of vehicles. (AHL only, duh.)
Minor:
- Capacity to sustain damage independent of characteristics.
- Turn order and initiative leave something to be desired.

Never played, nor had the opportunity to read Strike, so this comment will only go for AHL:

It doesn't feature well weapons that may have a good damaging potential but low penetration (e.g. shotgun pellets). As they have low peneration power, they are quite undamaging also to unarmored people.

IIRC this was an accepted flaw aknowledged by the people that wrote MT, and they even quoted it somewhere (sorry, I don't remember where) when describing the MT system.

 

[Tobias]

Nothing is ever perfect for me.
I like to tinker with existing systems a lot. My ideal system would
a) Be based on DGP's task system, which is still the best universal task resolution system in my eyes and
b) include very strong elements from STRIKER/AHL as well as from the MT system. The one element I really liked about MT's system was that the degree of success at the attack roll did influence the resulting damage. I like systems that do that in general.

 

[Dragoner]

I didn't like Strikers multiple die rolls and it's 600 ton apc's w/half day range; AHL just lacked too much, Bk4 one learned that grenades close quarters and mortars or mrls at range, make that FO skill pay off.

 

[Tobias]

Why unarmored?

For sake of argument and because it is a typical situation?

The GR is about 50% better than the AR (and 6 TL's higher), versus unarmored targets, but it's irrelevant because you have already hit.

You've lost me. What do you mean here?
The DM vs. armor is very much relevant because it makes it easier to hit the target.

I don't find it that bad, it has alot to offer, though it depends on how one plays it, the most deadly man portable weapon in Bk4 isn't the GR but the LMG: 5 10 round bursts per turn, think of that versus medium range unarmored targets, it's just murder; but then so are a lot of things and how you play it is role playing.

Well, you can only reliably fire two bursts per round over an extended period. Then again, firing over an extended period is usually not happening because every burst hits (unless you're dealing with heavily armored opponents at long ranges.) Burst for burst, the Gauss Rifle is still better, though. And it can use rapid fire, which more or less offsets the LMG's advantage.

The thing with the Gauss Rifle is, it doesn't even matter much if your target's armored. At long range, a Skill-1 grunt with a Gauss Rifle has a chance of ~98% of wounding or killing a Battle Dress wearer even if he's evading or taking cover. It's actually better than an FGMP - and much better than a PGMP - at taking out Battle Dress users, making the vaunted high-energy weapons essentially pointless.

 

[Tobias]

I didn't like Strikers multiple die rolls and it's 600 ton apc's w/half day range;

Well, that's just a matter of what you chose to design. The Imperial Grav APC in the rulebook is a monster vehicle that easily dwarfs the German WW2 Maus: 14 meters long (Maus 10 meters), 6 meters wide (Maus 3,67 meters), 2 meters chassis height (roughly the same as Maus minus the turret.)

P.S.: Also, I'm pretty sure the design is wrong, but that's almost to be expected of official Trav designs, right?

 

[Tobias]

I see another major flaw in MT system with penetration, that I already posted in MT errata:

I've never encountered that particular problem, but I see what you mean. It should probably be in the errata. (Not that the 10% rule makes much sense in any case.)

It doesn't feature well weapons that may have a good damaging potential but low penetration (e.g. shotgun pellets). As they have low peneration power, they are quite undamaging also to unarmored people.

That's true. I'd address this with the traditional method of doubling (or similar) penetration past armor. So if you gave a shotgun a penetration of 3, you'd get an effective damage DM +6 against unarmored targets, +2 against targets with armor 2 and -1 (as usual) against armor 4.

 

[Mithras]

In LBB1 already, a shotgun or submachinegun would automatically hit every unarmored target at medium range...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.

That was exactly my fix when I played CT 'by the book'!! Ignore postive DMs for armour. Now I just strip out the tables altogether.

 

[McPerth]

That's true. I'd address this with the traditional method of doubling (or similar) penetration past armor. So if you gave a shotgun a penetration of 3, you'd get an effective damage DM +6 against unarmored targets, +2 against targets with armor 2 and -1 (as usual) against armor 4.

That makes sense...

Another problem I forgot to say I see in AHL is the automatic wound category upgrade for HE/HEAP rounds. That means there is no possibility you are lightly wounded by them (even if armored). You're either unhurt or incapacited.

Following your reasoning above, we could house rule that results once armor has been substracted are doubled. So, if you have a 4 pen HE round hitting a target in vacc suit (armor 6) and you roll a 4 on damage table, your final roll is 2. Doubled it would be 4 (light wound). While most hits will also left the target unhurt or incapacited, there's at least a possibility that he's left only light wounded. Of course, that also makes them more lethal, as you have only 1 roll result to lightly wound your target, two of heavily wound it and higher you'll kill it, against 4 roll results to heavily wound it, none to lightly wound and higher you kill it.

 

[Tobias]

That makes sense...

Another problem I forgot to say I see in AHL is the automatic wound category upgrade for HE/HEAP rounds. That means there is no possibility you are lightly wounded by them (even if armored). You're either unhurt or incapacited.

Following your reasoning above, we could house rule that results once armor has been substracted are doubled. So, if you have a 4 pen HE round hitting a target in vacc suit (armor 6) and you roll a 4 on damage table, your final roll is 2. Doubled it would be 4 (light wound). While most hits will also left the target unhurt or incapacited, there's at least a possibility that he's left only light wounded. Of course, that also makes them more lethal, as you have only 1 roll result to lightly wound your target, two of heavily wound it and higher you'll kill it, against 4 roll results to heavily wound it, none to lightly wound and higher you kill it.

Yes, if you extend that to HE rounds you'll probably have to fine-tune the penetration values a little - or you could use a x1.5 modifier past armor instead of x2.

 

[Dragoner]

Well, that's just a matter of what you chose to design. The Imperial Grav APC in the rulebook is a monster vehicle that easily dwarfs the German WW2 Maus: 14 meters long (Maus 10 meters), 6 meters wide (Maus 3,67 meters), 2 meters chassis height (roughly the same as Maus minus the turret.)

P.S.: Also, I'm pretty sure the design is wrong, but that's almost to be expected of official Trav designs, right?

Wrong or right, the monster only holds 8 troops, the tanks are even worse; it would seem the system starts at TL5 and works up, but it's too complex.

For sake of argument and because it is a typical situation?

Typical GR equiped troop is TL13, and the typical opposition force would be armed and armored similarly. However the GR isn't the panacea of all arms, a realistically deployed platoon of TL7-8 can easily defeat a squad of of CA/GR infantry, esp if they have LMG's and Light Mortars (not to mention entrenched behind wire and mines, which is how it should be played). GR's shouldn't be that available, they are high tech military weapons, on most worlds they should be banned.

You've lost me. What do you mean here?
The DM vs. armor is very much relevant because it makes it easier to hit the target.

At medium range with a auto rifle or gauss rifle vs an unarmored target, both are an automatic hit, so the GR's extra positive DM's are lost. Add in telescopic sights to an auto rifle, which is standard now at TL7 and the auto rifle is barely under the gauss rifle in performance.

Well, you can only reliably fire two bursts per round over an extended period. Then again, firing over an extended period is usually not happening because every burst hits (unless you're dealing with heavily armored opponents at long ranges.) Burst for burst, the Gauss Rifle is still better, though. And it can use rapid fire, which more or less offsets the LMG's advantage.

LMG is still a better killer, the GR at best is a 10 round burst, 1/5 of the LMG's RoF and you really chew up ammo, which is hard to come by for the GR. I have a Gauss LMG in the ship's locker, easily the most powerful weapon in CT. However with all of the weapons, it's how you use them, the GR in a clear field of fire is a real killer, but the soldier still makes the rifle.

The thing with the Gauss Rifle is, it doesn't even matter much if your target's armored. At long range, a Skill-1 grunt with a Gauss Rifle has a chance of ~98% of wounding or killing a Battle Dress wearer even if he's evading or taking cover. It's actually better than an FGMP - and much better than a PGMP - at taking out Battle Dress users, making the vaunted high-energy weapons essentially pointless.

I make the PGMP/FGMP's more assault engineer weapons such as flame throwers, the "best weapon in the universe" is just ad copy to sell them. The GR is what it should be, a counter-measure for high tech body armor (and it isn't that much more awesome than an auto rifle). But tac missiles, mortars, MRL's, plasma/fusion A-Z guns all out do the small arms in range and damage; which is how it should be. The HEAP RAM Grenade shreds CA/BD as well (+4 aggregate medium range, single shot), don't get hit is the best solution, not depending on body armor to save you.

edit- checked PGMP/FGMP aggregates; PGMP is +3 vs BD and the GR +1 at VL range, FGMP is at +6; +5 over the GR at VL range, the only place the GR is similar is at long at +5, where the FGMP is +6 (+7 at med) and PGMP is +4.

 

[Tobias]

Wrong or right, the monster only holds 8 troops, the tanks are even worse; it would seem the system starts at TL5 and works up, but it's too complex.

I find it to be rather simple. It is certainly a lot less complex than FFS or similar. And it does not really have anything to do with the system that the example vehicles are such bizarre designs.

Add in telescopic sights to an auto rifle, which is standard now at TL7

It may be standard, but it's not possible by the rules. Nor do I think it makes much sene to just add DMs from scopes and autofire together. But anyway, I don't know what kind of point you think you're making here. Yes, other weapons produce nearly the same ridiculous results as the GR. That does not make the system better. It makes it worse.

I make the PGMP/FGMP's more assault engineer weapons such as flame throwers, the "best weapon in the universe" is just ad copy to sell them.

Generally speaking, if you can only make your fictional universe work by everybody being idiots over the course of centuries, it is less than convincing to me. Especially if I can just use another combat system which does not rely on such conceits to model a fictional universe.

The HEAP RAM Grenade shreds CA/BD as well (+4 aggregate medium range, single shot), don't get hit is the best solution, not depending on body armor to save you.

Again, you've lost me. Body armor protects you from getting hit in LBB1. Did you mean to say "don't ever get shot at"? Because that is pretty much the only solution.

edit- checked PGMP/FGMP aggregates; PGMP is +3 vs BD and the GR +1 at VL range, FGMP is at +6; +5 over the GR at VL range, the only place the GR is similar is at long at +5, where the FGMP is +6 (+7 at med) and PGMP is +4.

You forgot to take into account the GR's three to-hit rolls against a single target.

Let's not kid ourselves here, though: This discussion is not leading anywhere. You, for reasons entirely baffling to me, think that LBB1 is a playable system, represents the TU well and realistically models a firefight. This opinion was quite obviously not shared by the designers of AHL/STRIKER (and all other Traveller combat systems I know of.) I happen to follow their reasoning rather than yours.

P.S.: I should also note that this exact same discussion has happened before and I see no value in continuing to reenact it.