Beta critique: Element: travele4.pdf: Salvo Decoy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Beta critique: Element: travele4.pdf: Salvo Decoy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:07 pm

Salvo Decoy:
To determine if a missile salvo is real or a decoy requires an Average (8+) Electronics (Sensors) check (1 round, INT). DM-2 applies at ranges beyond Short.
A good sensor operator with a good sensor would roll something like:
2D +6[skill] +6[sensor] +1[command centre] -2[range] = 2D + 11 and always succeed, hence never be fooled by the decoy.


It needs an ECM DM and perhaps a ±TL DM?
arcador
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Beta critique: Element: travele4.pdf: Salvo Decoy

Postby arcador » Sat Apr 28, 2018 6:40 pm

It takes a round to do this check. But most military ships will have at least a second operator.

Anyway, with the significantly powerful sensors (Very advanced + Enhanced Signal Processing), the DM is high enough to make the check very easy.

Unless it's designed to fool only weak sensor ships.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Beta critique: Element: travele4.pdf: Salvo Decoy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:26 pm

Why would the military bother with decoys that could only fool Free Traders?

Perhaps raise the difficulty to Difficult and add a range modifier equal to the attack range modifier?
arcador
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Beta critique: Element: travele4.pdf: Salvo Decoy

Postby arcador » Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:43 am

Will that be sufficient? The net will be -4 more compared to the current. (now is -2 from beyond short; -2 more from to Difficult and -2 more from long range)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Beta critique: Element: travele4.pdf: Salvo Decoy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:28 am

A DM -4 is a huge deal on 2D6. The range of the dice is only 2-12. A DM -4 almost takes us from automatic success to just over 50% success.
arcador
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:34 pm

Re: Beta critique: Element: travele4.pdf: Salvo Decoy

Postby arcador » Sun Apr 29, 2018 9:48 am

Unless I do a mistake with the calculations:

Skill 4 (conservative) + Sensors 6 - Long range (4) + 2D - 10 (difficult check) = ?
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3229
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Beta critique: Element: travele4.pdf: Salvo Decoy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:11 am

2D +4[skill] +6[sensor] +1[command] -2[long range] = 2D + 9, autosuccess on Difficult...

Yes, we need higher difficulty...

Let's look at VLong and Very Difficult (12+):
2D +4[skill] +6[sensor] +1[command] -4[long range] = 2D + 7, Success on 5+ (83%). Still too easy to see through...


Let's see take this backwards: At VLong range it should be difficult to see through, say success on 9+ so we need an additional DM -4. We have no Difficulty that high... Let's call it an ECM mod instead and drop the Difficulty back to Average (8+), the needed ECM mod becomes -8.

Range VLong, Average (8+)
2D +4[skill] +6[sensor] +1[command] -4[long range] -8[ECM] = 2D -1, success on 9+ (28%)

Range Long, Average (8+)
2D +4[skill] +6[sensor] +1[command] -2[long range] -8[ECM] = 2D +1, success on 7+ (58%)

Looks reasonable to me...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests