IanBruntlett
Emperor Mongoose
This is the second of 3 questions I have about running a Traveller campaign...
Thank you to everyone who has answered so far
Thank you to everyone who has answered so far
2/3 : How can a Referee get to grips with Space Combat - for both Adventure Class ships and (larger) Naval Ships?
- Thread starter IanBruntlett
- Start date
I have no experience with larger ship combat, as Honor Harrington style games have never been anything my group is interested in. So any big ship combat that has happened in my campaign has been narrative.
For PC ships, I put the focus on PC decisions and actions. I try to make ship to ship combat be more about how the players want to do things than just an exchange of pewpew. The biggest issue I've seen with ship combat over the years is folks playing it like it's the Gunfight at the OK Corral: just ships out in the open shooting at each other and getting wrecked.
I just don't have ship combats in the middle of nowhere with nothing going on. I try to have two ships have something they are at odds about besides just blowing each other up. Communications while the fight is going on, "terrain" of some sort. Objectives and goals besides just kill the other guy. I want my players to have more to do than deciding whether to fire the lasers or fire the missiles.
And I want to make sure everyone in the party has something to do, even if it isn't "fighting", such as calming the passengers down and making sure they are in their emergency vacc suits.
It's the same thing I do with personal combat, too.
The actual rules for space combat are pretty easy. You have range bands, a mechanism for deciding if the ships get closer or farther away, and pewpew mechanics. Accuracy is quite high and armor on most civilian ships is quite low. So ships blasting at each other will probably just wreck each other pretty quick.
For PC ships, I put the focus on PC decisions and actions. I try to make ship to ship combat be more about how the players want to do things than just an exchange of pewpew. The biggest issue I've seen with ship combat over the years is folks playing it like it's the Gunfight at the OK Corral: just ships out in the open shooting at each other and getting wrecked.
I just don't have ship combats in the middle of nowhere with nothing going on. I try to have two ships have something they are at odds about besides just blowing each other up. Communications while the fight is going on, "terrain" of some sort. Objectives and goals besides just kill the other guy. I want my players to have more to do than deciding whether to fire the lasers or fire the missiles.
And I want to make sure everyone in the party has something to do, even if it isn't "fighting", such as calming the passengers down and making sure they are in their emergency vacc suits.
It's the same thing I do with personal combat, too.
The actual rules for space combat are pretty easy. You have range bands, a mechanism for deciding if the ships get closer or farther away, and pewpew mechanics. Accuracy is quite high and armor on most civilian ships is quite low. So ships blasting at each other will probably just wreck each other pretty quick.
Definitely agree that civilian ships should not be getting into combat if they can at all avoid it. Even low-grade weapons (basically, anything which projects any more offensive punch than a sandcaster) is probably going to tear right through most civilian ship armor. If the PCs are in a trader or a scout ship and find someone shooting at them, they need to either get away as soon as possible or have something absolutely devestating to fire a warning shot back... but that second is course of desperation. Even a single pulse laser strike can do horrid things to a Free or Far Trader; PCs need to end the possibility as quickly as possible.
Military campaigns tend not to be something I do regularly. Nothing wrong with them - I do like the occasional TCR skirmish - but I don't particularly enjoy playing or running them over an extended period. Personal taste; others do enjoy them (or so I've heard). Closest I tend to come is every once in a while have an extended long-range exploration arc.
Military campaigns tend not to be something I do regularly. Nothing wrong with them - I do like the occasional TCR skirmish - but I don't particularly enjoy playing or running them over an extended period. Personal taste; others do enjoy them (or so I've heard). Closest I tend to come is every once in a while have an extended long-range exploration arc.
Here we go again with the "avoid combat." No. Absolutely not. If the ref is unwilling to provide encounters for the travellers that can be challenging and fun but instead thinks every combat scenario should be a lesson in saddism, that ref is a DICK. Arming ships with weapons wouldn't even be an option if the designers did not want space fights.
With that said, some encounters do need to be one-sided to steer the story a certain direction, or encourage out of the box thinking, like Vormaerin said. Ships are going to get beat up even in a fairly even fight. This is Traveller and not a fantasy space opera, after all. But you should not be giving pirates or other average hostiles massive military war ships, unless your story specifically calls for them to be outmatched. Morale, skill, and discipline are the difference between a rag-tag pirate ship and an effective, combat experienced military ship. Skill them out accordingly. Perhaps they suck at hitting anything because they have an entirely green crew that has never even seen a fight, let alone been in one. Experience can and should matter. Don't just assume even military ships are necessarily more skilled. Throughout history, think of all of the militaries that have lost what should have been an easy win, simply because it was a poorly trained unit led by a commander that purchased his rank and had zero combat service.
When deciding your naval fleets and how they are structured, Look at our current navies. Destroyers and frigates are the most common ship in almost all modern navies. They can duke it out with each other, and even hold their own against cruisers when against a wall. In WW2, civilian ships were refitted with guns and sent in. Many were just cannon fodder with limited or no armor, some had limited success, and some were an astounding success. Germany had a merchant ship with hidden guns. It generally avoided military ships, but went toe-to-toe with a destroyer and thanks to a couple of critical surprise shots right off the bat, they sailed away while the destroyer sank beneath the waves. Allied PT boats were used to successfully take on Japanese capital ships.
Stop listening to the people that say combat should always be avoided, and instead make it a fun challenge. Defeating your 98th goblin isn't even worth keeping track of because the sole motivation is the XP. Here there is no reward. But a story about surviving and overcoming a superior force is a story worth telling. Let them have their moments of glory interspersed with encounters that are winnable, and ones that should be avoided at all cost. Bottom line: have fun WITH them, not AT them.
With that said, some encounters do need to be one-sided to steer the story a certain direction, or encourage out of the box thinking, like Vormaerin said. Ships are going to get beat up even in a fairly even fight. This is Traveller and not a fantasy space opera, after all. But you should not be giving pirates or other average hostiles massive military war ships, unless your story specifically calls for them to be outmatched. Morale, skill, and discipline are the difference between a rag-tag pirate ship and an effective, combat experienced military ship. Skill them out accordingly. Perhaps they suck at hitting anything because they have an entirely green crew that has never even seen a fight, let alone been in one. Experience can and should matter. Don't just assume even military ships are necessarily more skilled. Throughout history, think of all of the militaries that have lost what should have been an easy win, simply because it was a poorly trained unit led by a commander that purchased his rank and had zero combat service.
When deciding your naval fleets and how they are structured, Look at our current navies. Destroyers and frigates are the most common ship in almost all modern navies. They can duke it out with each other, and even hold their own against cruisers when against a wall. In WW2, civilian ships were refitted with guns and sent in. Many were just cannon fodder with limited or no armor, some had limited success, and some were an astounding success. Germany had a merchant ship with hidden guns. It generally avoided military ships, but went toe-to-toe with a destroyer and thanks to a couple of critical surprise shots right off the bat, they sailed away while the destroyer sank beneath the waves. Allied PT boats were used to successfully take on Japanese capital ships.
Stop listening to the people that say combat should always be avoided, and instead make it a fun challenge. Defeating your 98th goblin isn't even worth keeping track of because the sole motivation is the XP. Here there is no reward. But a story about surviving and overcoming a superior force is a story worth telling. Let them have their moments of glory interspersed with encounters that are winnable, and ones that should be avoided at all cost. Bottom line: have fun WITH them, not AT them.
Hey, if you want to fight it out because you're feeling belligerent, that's fine... but then you don't really have a legitimate beef when that jumpcusser's twin pulse laser turret blows through your armor like a short-range shotgun blast through cardboard. (Did you even actually read my post before you decided to imply I was a dick? I specifically called out a pulse laser - the second weakest actual offensive weapon in the game. These can be bought by just about anyone who can legitimately buy and fly a ship; they are not primarily military-grade weaponry. They are pretty much the starfaring equivalent of a civilian firearm.)
Now yes, if you're flying something with better than 4 or 6 armor, you can afford to get into fights a bit more... but in that case, you're not really flying a civilian trade or scout ship; you're in something more equivalent to a quasi-military vehicle. At that point, the equation changes and you can make your own decisions. Again, it comes down to "play the style you want to play". And before you start flinging around the insults, better bear in mind that if your choices are as legitimate as mine, then mine are just as legitimate as yours. Cool your jets, flyboy.
Now yes, if you're flying something with better than 4 or 6 armor, you can afford to get into fights a bit more... but in that case, you're not really flying a civilian trade or scout ship; you're in something more equivalent to a quasi-military vehicle. At that point, the equation changes and you can make your own decisions. Again, it comes down to "play the style you want to play". And before you start flinging around the insults, better bear in mind that if your choices are as legitimate as mine, then mine are just as legitimate as yours. Cool your jets, flyboy.
I don't think you should absolutely avoid combat in space. I just think that expecting anyone to stand around in a giant blank area and duke it out with another ship is both boring and unlikely to happen. The weaker ship absolutely would run or jump if there's nothing keeping them around. Even a slightly stronger ship needs a damn good reason to engage. Ship repairs are very expensive and the modifiers to hit make it trivially easy to damage other ships. +2 or +4 DRMs for lasers on an 8+ roll is massive, and the damage absorption of tramp traders is low. If your guys are actually good at gunnery, it's practically automatic.
My point is that when you engage in ship combat, you need to make sure it has a purpose and that it is designed to be interesting. People tend to default to open space. Give the characters terrain to contend with/take advantage of. Give them decisions to make about what to do and why. And, for god's sake, make sure everyone in the party has important tasks to undertake during any space combat.
Think about what's exciting about space combats in media. Focus on giving the players actual decisions to make that matter, not just roll the same dice every turn. This is not different than any other kind of combat but is more frequently forgotten with space combat from my observations. Space combat can be a lot of fun, but it needs a good situation to be so.
As far as military ships go, destroyers and frigates are not much more heavily armored than a freighter, so you can hurt them with beam and pulse lasers. They just tend to be 5x to 25x the size of a tramp freighter, unlike the WW2 Q-ship example you gave. Even corvettes, which are closer to PC ship size, are going to have a huge firepower advantage, so you absolutely need a surprise alpha strike to pull off that miracle victory.
Traveller is explicitly designed to favor ships getting blown up. Especially in the fleet combat. Naval combat needs options for cover and distraction and scheming, the same as ground combat.
My point is that when you engage in ship combat, you need to make sure it has a purpose and that it is designed to be interesting. People tend to default to open space. Give the characters terrain to contend with/take advantage of. Give them decisions to make about what to do and why. And, for god's sake, make sure everyone in the party has important tasks to undertake during any space combat.
Think about what's exciting about space combats in media. Focus on giving the players actual decisions to make that matter, not just roll the same dice every turn. This is not different than any other kind of combat but is more frequently forgotten with space combat from my observations. Space combat can be a lot of fun, but it needs a good situation to be so.
As far as military ships go, destroyers and frigates are not much more heavily armored than a freighter, so you can hurt them with beam and pulse lasers. They just tend to be 5x to 25x the size of a tramp freighter, unlike the WW2 Q-ship example you gave. Even corvettes, which are closer to PC ship size, are going to have a huge firepower advantage, so you absolutely need a surprise alpha strike to pull off that miracle victory.
Traveller is explicitly designed to favor ships getting blown up. Especially in the fleet combat. Naval combat needs options for cover and distraction and scheming, the same as ground combat.
Most frigates, destroyers, and corvettes are in the 4-6 armor range, too. SDBs (not needing all that space for jump) are the small ships that are actually competently armored.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I would say that at a historical perspective, civilians would generally either avoid trouble, or outrun it.
For big corporations, they'd calculate their potential windfalls, and send in East Indiamen, if said calculations came up with tremendous net profits.
For big corporations, they'd calculate their potential windfalls, and send in East Indiamen, if said calculations came up with tremendous net profits.
I'm in the minority on this and I am aware of that. I'll just re-iterate to the OP: You have full control over how deadly and dangerous you make the encounters. There is nothing wrong with letting your players have fun in a space battle, even if the prevailing attitude is to avoid combat. Not every ship encounter has to be fully armed to the max allowable by the rules, have the best available sensors, or be crewed by exceptionally skilled crew. Consider where they are, what they're in, and what they're doing. If it's a poor, backwater system outside of the imperium, perhaps that naval ship that doubles their size is an old rust bucket with barely functioning weapons, minimal crew and a captain that thought it would be cool to just own one.
I have a system I use to generate random ships encountered. I have a table to determine size, then use 1D per 100 tons to determine weapon placement, turret size, and weapon type. Civilians get a weapon on a 4+, military on a 2+ with a barbette on a 6. Every 10th barbette is a large bay. Turrets and type are another 1D roll for each (for an example of what might happen, a roll of 3 and 5 would result in a double turret missile rack, whereas a roll of 6 would be a popup, reroll for a 2 and 6, so it's a popup single turret sandcaster. Hard to explain without the tables, but works really well to give randomized but believable ships.) I use the system modifiers from Drinax to determine the odds of it being a small, medium, large or capital ship with a further roll to determine tonnage (it might be the Companion, I forgot where I got the modifiers such as backwater, capital and high traffic.) Large ships are less likely in backwater systems, but not impossible. You won't find a capital ship hanging out there, but if you're in a capital system with a naval base, it would be very likely. If they pick a fight with a capital ship while cruising around in a far trader, they get what's coming to them. But if they're on the fringes and encounter a 1000 ton civilian ship, there's a chance it could be a winnable fight (unless there's some hidden popup turrets. Can't always make it too easy!) if luck is with them, they could even encounter a naval ship twice their size and still come out on top. They don't have to "avoid combat" but they can't be foolish about it either. For ease of use, armor is simply military has it, civilians don't. Pirates have a 50/50 chance of having it. I've thought about using a percentage roll to determine how much, but I've not come up with a system that feels good.
I have a system I use to generate random ships encountered. I have a table to determine size, then use 1D per 100 tons to determine weapon placement, turret size, and weapon type. Civilians get a weapon on a 4+, military on a 2+ with a barbette on a 6. Every 10th barbette is a large bay. Turrets and type are another 1D roll for each (for an example of what might happen, a roll of 3 and 5 would result in a double turret missile rack, whereas a roll of 6 would be a popup, reroll for a 2 and 6, so it's a popup single turret sandcaster. Hard to explain without the tables, but works really well to give randomized but believable ships.) I use the system modifiers from Drinax to determine the odds of it being a small, medium, large or capital ship with a further roll to determine tonnage (it might be the Companion, I forgot where I got the modifiers such as backwater, capital and high traffic.) Large ships are less likely in backwater systems, but not impossible. You won't find a capital ship hanging out there, but if you're in a capital system with a naval base, it would be very likely. If they pick a fight with a capital ship while cruising around in a far trader, they get what's coming to them. But if they're on the fringes and encounter a 1000 ton civilian ship, there's a chance it could be a winnable fight (unless there's some hidden popup turrets. Can't always make it too easy!) if luck is with them, they could even encounter a naval ship twice their size and still come out on top. They don't have to "avoid combat" but they can't be foolish about it either. For ease of use, armor is simply military has it, civilians don't. Pirates have a 50/50 chance of having it. I've thought about using a percentage roll to determine how much, but I've not come up with a system that feels good.
You can rewrite things to make space combat more reasonable for a civilian ship. Actually give civilian ships armor. Nerf the massive laser to hit bonus, so that you don't have a situation where a beam laser fired by a skill 0 guy hits on a 4+. Between those two things, you start having a chance that the players in a free trader won't take crit damage in the first or second shot from the weakest offensive weapon in the game.
Honestly, look hard at 2300's version of combat. Lasers are Accurate (+1) rather than Traveller's +4. Sandcasters are ablative chaff screens that provide a defensive bonus instead just being a chance of possibly getting some temporary armor. The Signature rules means there's real decision making about stealth. There's several more player options for combat actions.
If you don't want to mess with the rules, then think carefully about the staging of your fights. Put them in interesting places. Give the PCs unrealistic movie asteroid fields or a small moon to dodge around and use as cover. Or have them fighting a space station with distinct arcs of fire so they can try to create safe zones with careful fire and maneuver.
This whole idea that anyone is saying players shouldn't do space combat is a strawman. NO ONE said that. They said they shouldn't do it in civilian ships. They have little or no armor, terrible sensors, generally bad thrust values. They are practically useless in a fight, even if you do arm them (because almost none of them include weapons in their base value).
If your players have acquired a paramilitary ship like a patrol cruiser or a converted merchant Q-ship that has improved some or all of those things, it's a different story.
Honestly, look hard at 2300's version of combat. Lasers are Accurate (+1) rather than Traveller's +4. Sandcasters are ablative chaff screens that provide a defensive bonus instead just being a chance of possibly getting some temporary armor. The Signature rules means there's real decision making about stealth. There's several more player options for combat actions.
If you don't want to mess with the rules, then think carefully about the staging of your fights. Put them in interesting places. Give the PCs unrealistic movie asteroid fields or a small moon to dodge around and use as cover. Or have them fighting a space station with distinct arcs of fire so they can try to create safe zones with careful fire and maneuver.
This whole idea that anyone is saying players shouldn't do space combat is a strawman. NO ONE said that. They said they shouldn't do it in civilian ships. They have little or no armor, terrible sensors, generally bad thrust values. They are practically useless in a fight, even if you do arm them (because almost none of them include weapons in their base value).
If your players have acquired a paramilitary ship like a patrol cruiser or a converted merchant Q-ship that has improved some or all of those things, it's a different story.
paltrysum
Emperor Mongoose
We've had a lot of fun with space combat. I'm a big fan of the rules. Simple and dramatic enough to resolve an encounter fairly quickly and then get back to the roleplaying. Something about being a gunner, rolling those dice for a big nasty hit on an enemy ship, really gets players excited. For larger encounters, I recommend the vector-based rules from the Companion Update.
With the addition of Damage Multiples in High Guard 2022, you should be able to resolve a 1-on-1 capital ship battle with the standard space combat rules. Before the update, I wouldn't recommend it. It would take forever for the ships to whittle away at each other. But now they will blow each other up pretty fast... just like I like it.
With the addition of Damage Multiples in High Guard 2022, you should be able to resolve a 1-on-1 capital ship battle with the standard space combat rules. Before the update, I wouldn't recommend it. It would take forever for the ships to whittle away at each other. But now they will blow each other up pretty fast... just like I like it.
Pull up any thread in this forum where combat of any kind is mentioned, and there will be people saying to avoid combat. More often than not, it is followed with an "unless" such as if they have gear that they frankly would not be able to have for quite some time into the campaign. Whether it's powered armor, a military ship, or high tech weaponry, the conversation happens constantly. It's not a straw man, it's a fact. It's a sentiment that is repeated every time. In this very own thread it's being said to "avoid combat.." The "unless" is immaterial. Unless playing a specific campaign that gives them powerful equipment, a new campaign is not going to be able to enjoy an actual fight for quite a long time with an artificial barrier in the way saying that they should avoid it "unless." It side-steps the posted question of helping a ref balance ship combat. New refs are being instructed to not get into combat. The prevailing attitude overall (not in all cases) is that they should just trade and run away until they can afford a warship, battle dress, and a minigun (That's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point.) I do not agree with that stance and try to avoid power creep for as long as possible (having to spend money on repairs and medical care helps stave it off, and I think that's why those things cost so much on top of helping to be a deterrent.)
The only person responsible for giving the players an impossible combat scenario is the ref, and they should have the pitfalls and benefits explained to them of why and when they may want to make combat easy versus impossible. A blanket statement of "avoid combat unless" does not help the ref or new players learn. I'm not saying they should be able to take on a capital ship in a civilian trader with a single pulse laser, nor should they be given a fight where they just steamroll a fleet of ships. But They should not be bumping into military ships in every corner of the galaxy that can smoke them in a single round either. Other lightly armed ships should be the common encounter (location not withstanding.) I'm saying stop throwing encounters at them beyond their capabilities and justifying it with "combat is deadly" then coming in here and telling everyone else they should be doing the same thing. It's getting frustrating because it prevents real discussion of how to make the experience more fun while still being challenging for the players. At the end of the night, it should be a fun experience, not a frustrating one.
I'm not trying to argue, so please don't take it that way. I think we agree at the core idea that combat under any scenario should not be a goblin stomp. I just get frustrated at constantly seeing posts to avoid combat when in general it really isn't as bad as it is portrayed (most of the time. I've been turned into a pile of goo more than once when the dice decide it's time.) I was not referring to any specific person as being a dick, and I apologize if anyone took it personally, unless you're this guy-->: We're all very aware there are refs and DMs out there that will intentionally set out to TPK their players because they get some kick out of it. Those guys have no business being in positions of authority, even in a game room. If your not that guy, please accept my apology if any offense was given.
I like your idea of making space not so wide open and it's an angle I hadn't considered. I did have to go back and read the modifiers again. I originally read it to mean lasers only got an extra bonus at short range. That may be wrong now that I weigh it against the descriptions and ranges. I will have to adjust accordingly if that's the case. If it is a standard +4, and another +1 for close range, then that seems grossly imbalanced compared to other systems and modifiers. I frequently have characters with a DEX of 12, so with Gunner 0 they would have a +6 to hit at long range and +7 at short? That seems unlikely? It's impossible to miss even at long range, and becomes nearly impossible to avoid at short range. I see what you mean by saying even an unskilled gunner is a serious threat. If they had no bonuses at all, it would still be a +1. I could be wrong, but it seems broken if that's the way it is intended to be read, plus it virtually nullifies evasive action even with a skilled pilot. Aid Gunners becomes something that would only be needed in a capital ship fight (if at all) where it should be needed much more in a smaller scale fight where it really becomes a decision between maneuvering and striking. Comparing it to 1est edition doesn't really help either as there is a wholly different set of bonuses (but make much more sense...)
The only person responsible for giving the players an impossible combat scenario is the ref, and they should have the pitfalls and benefits explained to them of why and when they may want to make combat easy versus impossible. A blanket statement of "avoid combat unless" does not help the ref or new players learn. I'm not saying they should be able to take on a capital ship in a civilian trader with a single pulse laser, nor should they be given a fight where they just steamroll a fleet of ships. But They should not be bumping into military ships in every corner of the galaxy that can smoke them in a single round either. Other lightly armed ships should be the common encounter (location not withstanding.) I'm saying stop throwing encounters at them beyond their capabilities and justifying it with "combat is deadly" then coming in here and telling everyone else they should be doing the same thing. It's getting frustrating because it prevents real discussion of how to make the experience more fun while still being challenging for the players. At the end of the night, it should be a fun experience, not a frustrating one.
I'm not trying to argue, so please don't take it that way. I think we agree at the core idea that combat under any scenario should not be a goblin stomp. I just get frustrated at constantly seeing posts to avoid combat when in general it really isn't as bad as it is portrayed (most of the time. I've been turned into a pile of goo more than once when the dice decide it's time.) I was not referring to any specific person as being a dick, and I apologize if anyone took it personally, unless you're this guy-->: We're all very aware there are refs and DMs out there that will intentionally set out to TPK their players because they get some kick out of it. Those guys have no business being in positions of authority, even in a game room. If your not that guy, please accept my apology if any offense was given.
I like your idea of making space not so wide open and it's an angle I hadn't considered. I did have to go back and read the modifiers again. I originally read it to mean lasers only got an extra bonus at short range. That may be wrong now that I weigh it against the descriptions and ranges. I will have to adjust accordingly if that's the case. If it is a standard +4, and another +1 for close range, then that seems grossly imbalanced compared to other systems and modifiers. I frequently have characters with a DEX of 12, so with Gunner 0 they would have a +6 to hit at long range and +7 at short? That seems unlikely? It's impossible to miss even at long range, and becomes nearly impossible to avoid at short range. I see what you mean by saying even an unskilled gunner is a serious threat. If they had no bonuses at all, it would still be a +1. I could be wrong, but it seems broken if that's the way it is intended to be read, plus it virtually nullifies evasive action even with a skilled pilot. Aid Gunners becomes something that would only be needed in a capital ship fight (if at all) where it should be needed much more in a smaller scale fight where it really becomes a decision between maneuvering and striking. Comparing it to 1est edition doesn't really help either as there is a wholly different set of bonuses (but make much more sense...)
JustEastOfTheEdge
Cosmic Mongoose
To answer the OP:
Read the rulebooks, three times. do dummy fights with you controlling both sides.
Read the rulebooks, three times. do dummy fights with you controlling both sides.
Yes, the modifiers for Lasers are too high imho for a 2d6 system. Its very clear in High Guard that beam lasers get +4 to attack rolls and pulse lasers get +2. It is in the weapon descriptions there, not just on that table in the core rules. So pulse lasers firing at long range are +0 to hit before any modifiers. And beam lasers at medium range are +4 before any skill modifiers. Even a single beam laser has a reasonably good chance to inflict critical damage at that point against a small civilian ship. If its a double or triple turret, ouch. Pulse lasers even more so.
The active defenses aren't that good and rely heavily on the ship's crew having high skill levels. Sandcasters are flat out not good enough to be the weapon your gunner spends his time on unless you are literally just running and trying to minimize damage. And shooting the other guy might be better for that. Evasive Maneuvers is only as good as your Pilot and costs you Thrust to use. Which most civilian ships don't have much of.
IMHO, you need to change those rules OR redesign the ships to be more tolerant of getting hit OR not force the players to fight in the open. Or more than one of the above. As written, space combat with a civilian ship is almost certainly a very large expense for PCs, win or lose. It's currently 100,000 credits per hull point lost to repair the ship, plus some amount for each crit result. You get tagged with one laser hit and you can be down half a million credits. (I highly recommend using the old price for hull repairs, which was 10k, IIRC. Can keep the 100k for the crits maybe. Unless your characters roll in the dough. If your players are making money hand over fist from trade, maybe they'll tolerate having a million credits flushed away by a random pulse laser hit.
).Do you have Adventure Class Ships? There's an Armed Trader in there that is basically a free trader that is designed not to die upon seeing an enemy. Armor 6, two double turrets (1 beam lasers, 1 missile/sandcaster) at the cost of some low berths and cargo. It's MCr57 vs a Far Trader being MCr54. There's nothing wrong with that being the PCs' "starter ship." That's what I meant by a paramilitary vessel. It's not a Q ship because it doesn't hide it's combat worthiness, but otherwise the same principle. You don't have to give them a corvette or anything "advanced".
I fully agree with you on the personal combat issue. The only reason it's particularly lethal is if you mix military weapons against civilian armors. Or civilian weapons against no armor at all. That's easy to avoid. Plus, there's plenty of options for cover, deception, stealth, and other interesting elements. But starship combat, as written, does not have those other options and there's no easy way to get defenses comparable to the offense.
Taking a standard Free or Far Trader into combat is the gaming equivalent of having your PC stand in the middle of the street blazing away in shorts & a t shirt (AV0). Except the medical bills will be much, much higher
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
To thie day I use a homebrew ship combat system for inclusion in the roleplaying, it is based on the "hidden" combat systm to be found in the ship's boat skill description.
If the ship combat involves lots of movement or starts at !subhunt" range than I break out the CT Starter edition range band system.
Full on vector based ship combat is something I do for a whole evening or day of wargaming, it is not something I would use to resolve a roleplaying encounter.
If the ship combat involves lots of movement or starts at !subhunt" range than I break out the CT Starter edition range band system.
Full on vector based ship combat is something I do for a whole evening or day of wargaming, it is not something I would use to resolve a roleplaying encounter.
Yeah. In the original 2nd edition book, each ton of parts actually repaired 10 points, which would be more inline with the 1e way. Update 2022 almost certainly has a a misprint, but it is as written until it's changed and even the errata just copied the exact same text (which is odd in itself... lol.) Sometimes you just have to rule zero it and bring in a more logical ruleIMHO, you need to change those rules OR redesign the ships to be more tolerant of getting hit OR not force the players to fight in the open. Or more than one of the above. As written, space combat with a civilian ship is almost certainly a very large expense for PCs, win or lose. It's currently 100,000 credits per hull point lost to repair the ship, plus some amount for each crit result. You get tagged with one laser hit and you can be down half a million credits. (I highly recommend using the old price for hull repairs, which was 10k, IIRC. Can keep the 100k for the crits maybe. Unless your characters roll in the dough. If your players are making money hand over fist from trade, maybe they'll tolerate having a million credits flushed away by a random pulse laser hit.
Last edited:
To Tha Moon!
Cosmic Mongoose
Nah. Taurus.Your Mother was a Darrian.
Yeah. In the original 2nd edition book, each ton of parts actually repaired 10 points, which would be more inline with the 1e way. Update 2022 almost certainly has a a misprint, but it is as written until it's changed and even the errata just copied the exact same text (which is odd in itself... lol.) Sometimes you just have to rule zero it and bring in a more logical rule
Eh, i really dont think its a misprint. Ships are incredibly expensive. This is really just another example of the mortgage problem - the order of magnitude of a ship expense is higher than other expenses. If you're doing ship things, your income has to be at ship level, not personal level.
This is the main reason i recommend avoiding space combat as a new group in a general campaign. (I think running practice encounters is an amazing idea, and you should do that with the players, not by yourself.) Not because its auto dangerous (even though it is), but because RAW doesnt give a lot of guidance to new GMs about how to reconcile ship expenses vs personal expenses. So, until you have a handle on that (and even dealing with the ship mortgage by itself can be vexing to a new group) you should avoid adding further ship expenses (like hull damage, or missile expenditures) into the game.
Yeah, that's a problem. If your players make the kind of money running a ship costs and then turn that their personal expenses, they seem ungodly rich. On the other hand, if they are doing "typical" adventurer jobs based off a ship, they'll go broke pretty fast.
My players and I aren't interested in counting individual credits, so we use an abstract "Wealth" type mechanic. They don't mind some income being in personal scale and others being in ship scale. But that's not gonna be a solution that everyone likes.
My players and I aren't interested in counting individual credits, so we use an abstract "Wealth" type mechanic. They don't mind some income being in personal scale and others being in ship scale. But that's not gonna be a solution that everyone likes.
Similar threads
