Which CT Combat System to Use?

[aramis]

rail guns don't have recoil in the classical sense.

https://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/IEEE/PR 52 Weldon Publications.pdf

Wrong, Tim. The classical sense "equal and opposite reaction" (E&OR), but noting that not all the E&OR is balancing the bullet.

Also, reread that last paragraph of your link. It talks explicitly about there BEING recoil forces.

The only weapons which lack a felt recoil are rockets, and even they have an E&OR - it's just that it's high speed gas, and not transferred to the launcher most of the time.

 

[tim_manley]

Wrong, Tim. The classical sense "equal and opposite reaction" (E&OR), but noting that not all the E&OR is balancing the bullet.

Also, reread that last paragraph of your link. It talks explicitly about there BEING recoil forces.

The only weapons which lack a felt recoil are rockets, and even they have an E&OR - it's just that it's high speed gas, and not transferred to the launcher most of the time.

Yes, but you're missing what it's saying: "Recoil forces in EM railguns appear wherever the breech of the railgun i s closed electromagnetically. This means recoil forces may appear on power supply leads, switches, or power supply components themselves."

By "classical" I meant (and the physicist I borrowed the phrase from) that it's not what we normally expect in a rifle. If you multiple gates then those gates take the recoil forces, reducing the force that is projected to the rear of the weapon.

Something else to bear in mind that may make the weapon appear to not have what most think is normal recoil "Unfortunately this does not result in a cancellation of the forces, but does result in the recoil of the railgun appearing as a lateral force a t the base of the compulsator."

 

[mike wightman]

The term you are looking for is impulse, which is basically the length of time the force acts for (sort of).

An em based weapon accelerates the projectile for the whole length of the barrel and the 'force' is spread out over the time the projectile is in the barrel. As a result you don't get the sudden kick you do with an explosive powered weapon.

 

[Piper]

... If you multiple gates then those gates take the recoil forces, reducing the force that is projected to the rear of the weapon.

If this is the case (and it seems so based on that article) it would seem that a pair of opposed gates would do the trick (one "up" one "down" or the like). Since this option wasn't mentioned, I'm wondering if there are practical considerations that prohibit this.

 

[hdan]

The term you are looking for is impulse, which is basically the length of time the force acts for (sort of).

An em based weapon accelerates the projectile for the whole length of the barrel and the 'force' is spread out over the time the projectile is in the barrel. As a result you don't get the sudden kick you do with an explosive powered weapon.

I suspect that, given the rate at which rounds travel down the barrel and human neuron response rate, the subjective effect would be much the same with a railgun or slug thrower.

 

[Shonner]

When I used to play CT all the time (we're talking in the 1980's here) first thing I did was to give armor an AV that they subtracted from the damage rolled. Then armor had no role to play in getting hit and that chart was no longer used. I understand the abstract of "how easily is target injured based on weapon, armor, range, cover and concealment" and these modifiers reflect that in a war-game aspect. But in an RPG man-to-man combat system a lot of players had issues with it.

That was total me in 1980. Fixing the "to-hit" rule.

 

[Supplement Four]

When I used to play CT all the time (we're talking in the 1980's here) first thing I did was to give armor an AV that they subtracted from the damage rolled. Then armor had no role to play in getting hit and that chart was no longer used. I understand the abstract of "how easily is target injured based on weapon, armor, range, cover and concealment" and these modifiers reflect that in a war-game aspect. But in an RPG man-to-man combat system a lot of players had issues with it.

I think we've all played around with that. The MT Armor Values (and Striker, from which they are based), are a great starting point for that.

But, I find it easiest to just keep the throw as-is and not refer to it as a "to hit" throw. It's really a throw to hit and penetrate...a throw to hit and damage.

 

[nats]

I always liked the normal Book 1 and 4 combat but I managed to get a copy of the combat table that is in Snapshot which is a godsend for Traveller combat resolution - same as the table in the green Ref Screen but the Snapshot table is better.

 

[Johnny_BoomBoom]

In a closed system (and you could describe a rail gun ready to fire as a closed system, or not YMMV), the Law of Conservation of Momentum (implied by Newton's Laws of Motion) applies.

Perception of how that momentum manifests itself (Mike Wightman described 'impulse' - which is a great way to describe exacty that), may differ from system to system, but as per the law, momentum has to be conserved.

 

[spinwardpirate]

I ran CT for the first time in decades this last Saturday, and I used Snapshot for combat. My thoughts after 11 hours of gaming. Snapshot, what a joy! I had fond memories of using its "action point" combat system, and it was nice to see that, after all these years, my memories of it being a fun little system hold true.

 

[Supplement Four]

I ran CT for the first time in decades this last Saturday, and I used Snapshot for combat. My thoughts after 11 hours of gaming. Snapshot, what a joy! I had fond memories of using its "action point" combat system, and it was nice to see that, after all these years, my memories of it being a fun little system hold true.

I've never run an action point system. I always found it clunky--too focused on a war board game and mechanics rather than on roleplaying and inhabiting the character's skin while he's in combat.

But...that doesn't mean that I don't want to try it some day. IT sounds like fun!

 

[aramis]

I've never run an action point system. I always found it clunky--too focused on a war board game and mechanics rather than on roleplaying and inhabiting the character's skin while he's in combat.

But...that doesn't mean that I don't want to try it some day. IT sounds like fun!

The best ones I've seen have been FASA STRPG, the Mongoose Playtest system, and the one in the Battlestations! Board game (by Gorilla Games). Snapshot or AHL are not bad, either.

 

[tim_manley]

one shouldn't be shot without it being a life changing experience.

Have you played the Phoenix Command Combat System?

"Phoenix Command had extremely detailed rules in an attempt to realistically simulate combat."

I used to run this system A LOT. And I converted a lot of the games I played to use this -- including Traveller.

 

[tim_manley]

The best ones I've seen have been FASA STRPG, the Mongoose Playtest system, and the one in the Battlestations! Board game (by Gorilla Games). Snapshot or AHL are not bad, either.

I've played action point systems in quite a few games. To me they're too war-game like and not really rpg like, so I don't like them in my RPG's. But, YMMV, to me it's a turn off in an RPG (note, I haven't always thought this way -- but now that I'm getting old I do....)

 

[aramis]

I've played action point systems in quite a few games. To me they're too war-game like and not really rpg like, so I don't like them in my RPG's. But, YMMV, to me it's a turn off in an RPG (note, I haven't always thought this way -- but now that I'm getting old I do....)

I came to RPGing after wargaming. I've always been more prone to a wargamer's perspective.

The action point system in the playtest drafts for Mongoose was very nice - it only allowed one action at a shot, determining when you next went from the cost of the action.

A number of other games use conceptually similar action count systems: Aces & Eights, Hackmaster 5e, and a few others.

They work just fine without the map.

 

[spinwardpirate]

The best ones I've seen have been FASA STRPG...

Agreed. And I can't wait to try in again in about 7 months time.

 

[spinwardpirate]

I've played action point systems in quite a few games. To me they're too war-game like and not really rpg like, so I don't like them in my RPG's. But, YMMV, to me it's a turn off in an RPG (note, I haven't always thought this way -- but now that I'm getting old I do....)

That's funny, because now that I'm getting older I'm going back in the other direction.

Maybe it is just me seeking some sort of change of pace. I've been running Fate since the end of last year, and it is WAY loosey-goosey when it comes to combat.

 

[spinwardpirate]

I've never run an action point system. I always found it clunky--too focused on a war board game and mechanics rather than on roleplaying and inhabiting the character's skin while he's in combat.

But...that doesn't mean that I don't want to try it some day. IT sounds like fun!

I discovered this Saturday that the use of the "Expletive - 1 action point" is a huge spur to roleplaying.
:rofl:

(When I played CT as a kid, I doubt I even knew what expletive meant.)

 

[tim_manley]

That's funny, because now that I'm getting older I'm going back in the other direction.

Maybe it is just me seeking some sort of change of pace. I've been running Fate since the end of last year, and it is WAY loosey-goosey when it comes to combat.

The Phoenix Command Combat system uses action points, and I loved that combat system to the point where I rolled it into the games I played (Aftermath, Traveller, Top Secret, Boot Hill).

But, as I've aged I found that the narrative combat flowed faster and easier and not only I but the players had more fun.

 

[aramis]

The Phoenix Command Combat system uses action points, and I loved that combat system to the point where I rolled it into the games I played (Aftermath, Traveller, Top Secret, Boot Hill).

But, as I've aged I found that the narrative combat flowed faster and easier and not only I but the players had more fun.

Phoenix Command is WAY too tight. Fate is too loose. But there is a huge range between them.