PsiTraveller said:
Urk, good catch! Fixed!
PsiTraveller said:
To be honest, I always assumed it was a combination of sensors, computer and gubbinz.
Core Computers in Non Capital Ships
- Thread starter PsiTraveller
- Start date
Urk, good catch! Fixed!
To be honest, I always assumed it was a combination of sensors, computer and gubbinz.
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
somebody on another thread did a cost writeup on Core systems. (It was Nerhesi, he made the non core computers a lot cheaper and scaled up from there.)
I am not sure how you will be pricing things out or if you will keep Nerhesi's pricing.
And sorting out what makes the TL of a missile is important because of the bonuses for the attack roll. In the Drinax campaign it would add +3 to every attack roll against a TL 12 ship made by the Harrier, this is a big number.
I am not sure how you will be pricing things out or if you will keep Nerhesi's pricing.
And sorting out what makes the TL of a missile is important because of the bonuses for the attack roll. In the Drinax campaign it would add +3 to every attack roll against a TL 12 ship made by the Harrier, this is a big number.
ErinPalette
Mongoose
This. A lower TL computer, even a core, should cost more than a higher TL computer of the same bandwidth.PsiTraveller said:
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Is there a way to make a unit of bandwidth cost a certain amount at a certain Tech Level and the cost per bandwidth goes down as TL goes up.
Then if you want more bandwidth you have to spend more money to get the multi processing Cores, so the amount of bandwidth you want factors in as well, because Core 90 should be pretty expensive even at TL 15.
Then if you want more bandwidth you have to spend more money to get the multi processing Cores, so the amount of bandwidth you want factors in as well, because Core 90 should be pretty expensive even at TL 15.
msprange said:An interesting point, Erin. We have not stated that you cannot run the same software twice at the same time... and I am not sure I want to restrict that.
As for the particular point on Fire Control... just because it says you can't, does not necessarily mean you canI would be tempted to say that this is one of those areas that I would advise against, but if a ref really wants to...
Yeah - running the same software more than once to get more bonuses to other turrets is one thing - and is fine. Running the same software to COMBINE bonuses, is absolutely ludicrous on so many levels. Consider this strong vote for "no combining any software, the same or otherwise, that gives bonuses to the same roll".
This is like a basic design principle.. take the highest bonus from the same "source". Computer Software bonus is "a source".
Otherwise you're going to get some ludicrous to hit numbers and evade values... silly silly.
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
I just want to be able to have my SDB's run Evade 3 and Fire Control 5 a couple of times. I will give the +5 to single turrets, no overlap.
I'll pay for it running Bitcoin when not fighting. Core 90 times Tech level 15 is how much a day?
I'll pay for it running Bitcoin when not fighting. Core 90 times Tech level 15 is how much a day?
PsiTraveller said:I just want to be able to have my SDB's run Evade 3 and Fire Control 5 a couple of times. I will give the +5 to single turrets, no overlap.
I'll pay for it running Bitcoin when not fighting. Core 90 times Tech level 15 is how much a day?
Lol - yeah I think that is fine. I'm just deathly afraid of the horrible imbalance that would be +8s to hit or -6s to be-hit and so on. If only the highest bonus from ANY software to any one roll applies, then I'm all for it!
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
I just need the big bonuses because I want to be fighting from Very Long range, so have to overcome the -4 penalty.
At closer ranges you will end up with +6 or +8 to hit
Pulse Laser +2, Software +5 Gunner +2 is +9, -4 for range is +5 at Very Long, +7 at Long and +9 at Medium.
Beam Laser +4, software +5, Gunner +2 is +11, +9 at Long range (assuming Tech upgrade to long range), +11 at Medium.
This has to get past the Evade software and Pilot check roll so the numbers will drop.
If you spend the money it helps in combat. Join the Drinaxian Navy, ask about our cybernetic upgrade program!
At closer ranges you will end up with +6 or +8 to hit
Pulse Laser +2, Software +5 Gunner +2 is +9, -4 for range is +5 at Very Long, +7 at Long and +9 at Medium.
Beam Laser +4, software +5, Gunner +2 is +11, +9 at Long range (assuming Tech upgrade to long range), +11 at Medium.
This has to get past the Evade software and Pilot check roll so the numbers will drop.
If you spend the money it helps in combat. Join the Drinaxian Navy, ask about our cybernetic upgrade program!
Currently, assuming all is equal, using fire-control/5 v evade/3, the overall delta is obviously +2.
That means medium range, same skilled gunner vs pilot, you need a 6+ to hit. This is great.
You also have the following, unbalanced (as in, no corresponding negative modifiers):
Accurate turret +1
Aid Gunner from pilots +1 or +2
Possible lock-on (boon/bane)
Pulse laser +2
Beam laser +4
This is why we have to be careful and limit positive modifiers. Assuming equality, a shot is "easy", and easily becomes trivial. We don't need further software modifiers! We are in a finely balanced state! No touchy!
(Although I think you were just pulling my chain but fixing trivial rolls was one of the biggest things I set out to address in MgT2! I strongly reference it in my RPGNet review too! - it is something I think we all need to be proud of. No superflous rolls!)
That means medium range, same skilled gunner vs pilot, you need a 6+ to hit. This is great.
You also have the following, unbalanced (as in, no corresponding negative modifiers):
Accurate turret +1
Aid Gunner from pilots +1 or +2
Possible lock-on (boon/bane)
Pulse laser +2
Beam laser +4
This is why we have to be careful and limit positive modifiers. Assuming equality, a shot is "easy", and easily becomes trivial. We don't need further software modifiers! We are in a finely balanced state! No touchy!
(Although I think you were just pulling my chain
but fixing trivial rolls was one of the biggest things I set out to address in MgT2! I strongly reference it in my RPGNet review too! - it is something I think we all need to be proud of. No superflous rolls!)
Nerhesi said:This is why we have to be careful and limit positive modifiers. Assuming equality, a shot is "easy", and easily becomes trivial. We don't need further software modifiers! We are in a finely balanced state! No touchy!
Something to consider is that it could lead to the effect whereby if you go into battle, you _will_ get damaged, and the effectiveness of everything is who gets damaged the most first. I am not 100% against that model
msprange said:Nerhesi said:This is why we have to be careful and limit positive modifiers. Assuming equality, a shot is "easy", and easily becomes trivial. We don't need further software modifiers! We are in a finely balanced state! No touchy!
Something to consider is that it could lead to the effect whereby if you go into battle, you _will_ get damaged, and the effectiveness of everything is who gets damaged the most first. I am not 100% against that model
We're at that as-is Matt - which is why I'm not opposed to it
All our testing so far is showing us that given similar/ships and crews.. you're still hitting at around 75%+ of the time.Im not in favour of us going into combat where you don't need to hit! Diceless Traveller
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Not trying to pull your chain Nerhesi, but trying to generate a solid hit while making the other guy miss is an important tactic. The removal of tonnage requirements for Core computers creates a whole new adventure for ship design. Advanced Fire control for some turrets, Fire Control for Mains, Evade software that improves defence while not costing thrust. This is brand new territory for small ships.
I am running Drinax, so ships over 1000 tons are not that common (aside from the Naval adventure in module 6). So mass combat is not my area of interest at the moment. Having interesting pirate battles is my interest, which is why I like the SDB thread and ship design that stays in the lower tonnages.
Allowing for the new computer systems, changing the price of computer bandwidth affects ship design at every tonnage. You and I have discussed the Very Long range combat band, we are now looking at the possibility of a -7 to hit without a loss of thrust or a Pilot roll vs beam weapons. This is awesome news for the "don't hit me back" design philosophy. Thrust 9 and EW may allow for salvos to be thinned out over several rounds to prevent swamping PD. Very Long range weapons do not do as much damage, but being nibbled to death by ducks in a solo fight, or costing enough money that a trader offers terms/cash/cargo to stop taking 10 000 credits worth of hits every 20 minutes is a valid pirate tactic. Heck it is a valid SDB tactic against invaders as long as the enemy is not closing in on a position that has to be defended so the SDB cannot run away and keep at range.
I am running Drinax, so ships over 1000 tons are not that common (aside from the Naval adventure in module 6). So mass combat is not my area of interest at the moment. Having interesting pirate battles is my interest, which is why I like the SDB thread and ship design that stays in the lower tonnages.
Allowing for the new computer systems, changing the price of computer bandwidth affects ship design at every tonnage. You and I have discussed the Very Long range combat band, we are now looking at the possibility of a -7 to hit without a loss of thrust or a Pilot roll vs beam weapons. This is awesome news for the "don't hit me back" design philosophy. Thrust 9 and EW may allow for salvos to be thinned out over several rounds to prevent swamping PD. Very Long range weapons do not do as much damage, but being nibbled to death by ducks in a solo fight, or costing enough money that a trader offers terms/cash/cargo to stop taking 10 000 credits worth of hits every 20 minutes is a valid pirate tactic. Heck it is a valid SDB tactic against invaders as long as the enemy is not closing in on a position that has to be defended so the SDB cannot run away and keep at range.
PsiTraveller said:
I think we may be saying the same thing (and adventure class combat is more interesting to me too!). But when "solid hit" comes up against "dont hit me" - the result shouldn't be "I still hit you", it should be "you hit me 50% of the time" - granted this is the most basic definition and litmus paper test of balance in any game. Assuming all is equal, the scales are "balanced". The problem is that the scales are already NOT balanced, and in favour of "solid hit". Allowing stacking software keep tipping it in that favour where stacked fire-control easily out paces evade.
So we're already in-favour of "solid hit", majorly so - anything more basically begins to completely devalue defences (skills, computer, etc) because you get to the point where you will be "Solidly hit" no matter what you defences are. Even at very long range, assuming all is equal, I can easily make it a 50% chance to hit roughly (8+). So even with all the odds loaded against the "solid hit ship", it is 50/50 in the worst case scenario. In the balanced scenario it is a 4+ (medium range, aid gunners).
This sort of game theory is really described as the "immovable object" vs "irresistible force" - when both meet, the result should be 50/50, not weighted towards one-side
I think we agree on this. . . so I don't see how we should need more "to hit" bonuses ErinPalette
Mongoose
This conversation is veering off topic of Core Computers and into "Hit vs. Evade in Space Combat", so we might want to adjourn to another thread. That said...
Remember a while ago when I said there was little reason for a pilot to bleed thrust to evade a single attack when the Evade program made it harder for ALL attacks to hit and didn't cost thrust? How about if we 1) let Evasive Action work against all attacks per round and/or 2) have the Effect of that evasion add to the difficulty to hit?
In other words (and to bring this back to relevance) we don't worry quite so much about all the to-hit bonuses because we made it easier for the defenders not to get hit.
Remember a while ago when I said there was little reason for a pilot to bleed thrust to evade a single attack when the Evade program made it harder for ALL attacks to hit and didn't cost thrust? How about if we 1) let Evasive Action work against all attacks per round and/or 2) have the Effect of that evasion add to the difficulty to hit?
In other words (and to bring this back to relevance) we don't worry quite so much about all the to-hit bonuses because we made it easier for the defenders not to get hit.
a) As indicated earlier Erin in this thread, the conversation about Evasion being an effect roll, OR (let alone AND) apply to all attacks is something that has passed. I actually brought this up way back in the process because I thought we should streamline evasion "system" across all 3 combat tiers (Personal, Vehicle, Spacecraft). Basically, does it apply to one or all attacks, is it just applied to the to-hit roll, or is it opposed effect rolls? I just didn't want to bring it up again as direction was against it.
b) If suddenly the powers-that-be decided to re-open (a) and go in that direction, we would have change/errata Core Rule book - which has the rules for Evasion, evasion software, etc
c) Finally, to keep this topic on track, we should then avoid any conversation of Software stacking. It did not in Classic Traveller, and it did not in MGT1, and a good reason for both is to avoid runaway bonuses/penalties. I think changing that at all (which is directly linked to the rating and performance of Core Computers) would introduce significant downstream effects. Things that would lead us to the really good discussion about why not just having computer rating, be some sort of assignable value to EW, Evasion, to-hit, etc... I think Phavoc or someone else brought this up. Anyways - so we should leave software as is (Apply only the highest bonus to any one roll from Software, no stacking of similar/different software to the same roll)
I think we're all agreed on Core Computers now anyways. Matt will be adjusting cost and TL to make sure it is a natural progression from regular computers.. and if you can afford it.. go wild and put them on fighters! (although probably not the wisest of investments).
b) If suddenly the powers-that-be decided to re-open (a) and go in that direction, we would have change/errata Core Rule book - which has the rules for Evasion, evasion software, etc
c) Finally, to keep this topic on track, we should then avoid any conversation of Software stacking. It did not in Classic Traveller, and it did not in MGT1, and a good reason for both is to avoid runaway bonuses/penalties. I think changing that at all (which is directly linked to the rating and performance of Core Computers) would introduce significant downstream effects. Things that would lead us to the really good discussion about why not just having computer rating, be some sort of assignable value to EW, Evasion, to-hit, etc... I think Phavoc or someone else brought this up. Anyways - so we should leave software as is (Apply only the highest bonus to any one roll from Software, no stacking of similar/different software to the same roll)
I think we're all agreed on Core Computers now anyways. Matt will be adjusting cost and TL to make sure it is a natural progression from regular computers.. and if you can afford it.. go wild and put them on fighters! (although probably not the wisest of investments).
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Well hang on a second there Nerhesi. A high end computer capable of generating Effect 6+ could be fantastic on a fighter.
Let's put two firmpoints on a small fighter, slip that into a cluster of other fighters. Fighters that are ignored by big ships dealing with salvos and other big ships. Have a really fast close rate on the fighter, something insanely fast.
But on this fighter with 2 firmpoints we put in an Ion weapon and a computer big enough to run fire control 5 and good evasion software so the ship can get close.
Then, with an Effect of 6 or more it messes up its targets power system for D3 rounds with an Effect 6+. This means that a swarm of small fighters are now a threat that can really mess up the power system of a ship for a long time in combat. And a swarm of fighters may not show which one has the Ion weapon or the advanced targeting. A single fighter could tip the balance of a fight in a single round.
Let's put two firmpoints on a small fighter, slip that into a cluster of other fighters. Fighters that are ignored by big ships dealing with salvos and other big ships. Have a really fast close rate on the fighter, something insanely fast.
But on this fighter with 2 firmpoints we put in an Ion weapon and a computer big enough to run fire control 5 and good evasion software so the ship can get close.
Then, with an Effect of 6 or more it messes up its targets power system for D3 rounds with an Effect 6+. This means that a swarm of small fighters are now a threat that can really mess up the power system of a ship for a long time in combat. And a swarm of fighters may not show which one has the Ion weapon or the advanced targeting. A single fighter could tip the balance of a fight in a single round.
PsiTraveller said:Well hang on a second there Nerhesi. A high end computer capable of generating Effect 6+ could be fantastic on a fighter.
Let's put two firmpoints on a small fighter, slip that into a cluster of other fighters. Fighters that are ignored by big ships dealing with salvos and other big ships. Have a really fast close rate on the fighter, something insanely fast.
But on this fighter with 2 firmpoints we put in an Ion weapon and a computer big enough to run fire control 5 and good evasion software so the ship can get close.
Then, with an Effect of 6 or more it messes up its targets power system for D3 rounds with an Effect 6+. This means that a swarm of small fighters are now a threat that can really mess up the power system of a ship for a long time in combat. And a swarm of fighters may not show which one has the Ion weapon or the advanced targeting. A single fighter could tip the balance of a fight in a single round.
Absolutely! and that's just using basic software as is - no change needed. Think on this:
Fire control 5 with a single beam laser firmpoint, during a dogfight, with a simple TL+2 accurate weapon. Your bonus DM to hit is inherently a +5, adding another +5 due to fire-control. Add to that the fact you are guaranteed to win the "dog fight" vs that larger ship you're fighting, and that is another +2 to hit. So... i'm at a +12 to hit, with effect adding to damage, and doesn't even include my Dex DM or my Gunnery Skill yet! lol!
Very cool, very cinematic, very effective. Very much balanced (get fighters to screen or fragmentation missiles or etc etc.. but can't just take your 700 ton bay-weapon armed ship and expect to steam roll all other tactics!)
ErinPalette said:
We are in the midst of tweaking the Core book - I have added a line in there so it covers all computers!
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
Nerhesi: bring that thought about the huge stacking bonuses over to my thread about repairing Critical Hits please.
