2300AD Space Combat Range Bands

[rgrove0172]

I see that the ranges for space combat are dramatically increased in the 2300 sourcebook. The table however lists "range bands" next to each category instead of "Thrust to Change". The numbers are quite different, and are a range instead of a value. (ie. Very Long = 10-16 range bands)

What does this mean? Very Long range in Traveller has a Thrust to Change of 25. I thought "Range Bands" were the category (ie. short, medium etc.)

Whats up?

 

[Nathan Brazil]

In part it is due to how 2300 stutterwarp works. Stutterwarp by itself can jump you in the correct direction you want, but provides no momentum in the normal universe for the ship to have a vector. Or at least that was my understanding in old GDW 2300.

Which brought new terror to the meaning of the term "dead in space" if you lost your stutterwarp... :twisted:

 

[rgrove0172]

You still have to travel in a given direction for a given period of time to separate yourself from your opponant or close with him. Its still a constant.

Evidently the 'range bands' are more a measure of distance within the range categories, each equalling a light second with the more distant range categories encompassing more space. Thats fine, and fits with their sensor ranges and such, but they do not include a Thrust to Change equivalent (unless its the same as in Traveller). How do you move?

 

[GJD]

Have a look here:

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=50877&p=717373#p717373

G.

 

[rgrove0172]

Ok, thanks for that. That does clear up the fact that weapons fire and sensors use the range bands (light second intervals) instead of the range categories.

Im still stumped on movment. Do the tactical movement values of the ships use the range bands to move as well, or do they still use the Thrust to Change values from CT? Instead of moving from category to category by applying a given amount of thrust, do they just move along the range bands linearly?

 

[GJD]

As I recall - and this is from memory only - the difference in speed is used as a DM on a task roll to change the distance between the two ships, so a faster ship gets a +dm over a slower ship to close the distance from long to medium. If one ship choses to close and the other to extend and both suceed the distance remains the same.

G.

 

[rgrove0172]

Wow, no offense but where did that come from?

There is absolutely nothing like that in the book at all. Of course, the space combat section doesnt have a thing in it about maneuver. In fact, the Order of Event chart still reads "then positon of ships is changed based on their thrust", which isnt even used in the game. It actually looks like there is a page missing there or something.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Hello again

The rules say:
Tactical Speed: To get the tactical (combat) speed of a star-ship, multiply the current warp speed by two and round up or down to the nearest whole number. This is the vessel’s speed in range bands per turn in starship combat.

Since a range band is a light second this gives you the number of light seconds a ship can move in a turn.

Traveller space combat is very abstract. 2300 is far more suited to a battle mat and miniatures or counters, call one inch a light second and away you go.

If your tactical speed is two you can move two inches per turn. Measure the distance between ships.

Just ignore the whole short/medium/long stuff. A target is so many light seconds away and you are moving at so many light seconds a turn. Play 2300 space combats like a wargame and ignore any links to the Traveller method.

Note. Tactical speed being twice SW rating means a SW rating of 1 should be moving 2 LS/turn. 600,000km in 3 minutes, that is 3,333KM a second or just above 1% of light speed.
Note 2. Navigation speed on the shelf for the same rating 1 drive would be 0.645AU/day which is 96.76m Km/day. 4.03m Km/hour. 67,187km/minute or 1119km/second.

This would suggest that space combat turns are roughly eight minutes long not three minutes long otherwise ships moving at tactical speed seem to be slightly under three times as fast as they are making a normal transit on the shelf. Which is a bit odd.

 

[GJD]

Wow, no offense but where did that come from?

From my memory - as I said - so entirely possible I mixed not only versions of Traveller, but possibly even entire rule sets

 

[rgrove0172]

Hello again

The rules say:
Tactical Speed: To get the tactical (combat) speed of a star-ship, multiply the current warp speed by two and round up or down to the nearest whole number. This is the vessel’s speed in range bands per turn in starship combat.

Since a range band is a light second this gives you the number of light seconds a ship can move in a turn.

Traveller space combat is very abstract. 2300 is far more suited to a battle mat and miniatures or counters, call one inch a light second and away you go.

If your tactical speed is two you can move two inches per turn. Measure the distance between ships.

Just ignore the whole short/medium/long stuff. A target is so many light seconds away and you are moving at so many light seconds a turn. Play 2300 space combats like a wargame and ignore any links to the Traveller method.

Note. Tactical speed being twice SW rating means a SW rating of 1 should be moving 2 LS/turn. 600,000km in 3 minutes, that is 3,333KM a second or just above 1% of light speed.
Note 2. Navigation speed on the shelf for the same rating 1 drive would be 0.645AU/day which is 96.76m Km/day. 4.03m Km/hour. 67,187km/minute or 1119km/second.

This would suggest that space combat turns are roughly eight minutes long not three minutes long otherwise ships moving at tactical speed seem to be slightly under three times as fast as they are making a normal transit on the shelf. Which is a bit odd.

Thanks for the heads up on changing Tactical Speed on the shelf, there is nothing on that in the rules and frankly I hadnt thought of it.

 

[rgrove0172]

Wow, no offense but where did that come from?

From my memory - as I said - so entirely possible I mixed not only versions of Traveller, but possibly even entire rule sets

No problem, just caught a totally confused guy off guard! :lol:

 

[rgrove0172]

Captain Jonah
As to playing space combat like a wargame, Ive always felt this interrupted the flow of a roleplaying experience. I prefer to describe the action from a personal perspective only and need only enough rules to help me keep consistency. The Traveller rules seem just right for this, if I could figure the 2300 version out.

 

[Captain Jonah]

Captain Jonah
As to playing space combat like a wargame, Ive always felt this interrupted the flow of a roleplaying experience. I prefer to describe the action from a personal perspective only and need only enough rules to help me keep consistency. The Traveller rules seem just right for this, if I could figure the 2300 version out.

That is going to be a bit of a problem for you since the 2300 space combat system was always a wargame type thing. Just look at the pictures they use to demonstrate aspects of it in the GDW books. The Traveller system as an abstract leads to a lot of problems and fudges which is fine if your math is good or you can wing it on the go. Like ships moving at a diagonal to each other while running away or chasing.

Perhaps you could find a small battle map on which to fight the battle then you can put it on part of the gaming table and call it the combat display :lol:

 

[GJD]

On my list of "things to do" is an exploration of the 2300AD MGT space combat rules, trying to bring them together a bit more, clarify, explain and expand. The hit tables don't really jive for 2300AD, for instance, where M-Drives are much less important to tactical combat. I posted a bit about it on the 2300AD facebook page a while ago.

 

[silburnl]

This would suggest that space combat turns are roughly eight minutes long not three minutes long otherwise ships moving at tactical speed seem to be slightly under three times as fast as they are making a normal transit on the shelf. Which is a bit odd.

That's just continuing in the fine tradition of T2300. The original rules had a similar scaling issue between the implied tactical speeds and the intrasystem cruising speeds - although it was off by an order of magnitude as I recall, which made me think someone misplaced a decimal point during layout.

You *could* explain the scaling discrepancy away by saying that engineering is redlining the stutterwarp during tactical combat, trading engine longevity for extra capability during the crisis - but a ~200% performance improvement (never mind a ~1000% improvement) is a bit rich for that to be credible if you ask me.

The alternative is to change one of the scaling factors - combat turn is the easiest, although I went for cutting the size of tactical hexes to 0.1 light seconds back in the day since I thought that having energy weapons able to reach out and touch targets 3 light-seconds away was just too performant compared to what we knew about lasers and such already. Also shrinking tactical hexes meant that you could have meaningful manoever battles in orbital space, which is nice if you like that sort of thing.

Regards
Luke

 

[rgrove0172]

Dang, I cant believe the scale issue never popped up during my reading of the classic rules. Guess I never had a reason to do the math.

So you guys really feel the original space combat system should be carried over if using Traveller for the character action and general game play? I suppose the systems are close enough that the skills used in combat can be readily converted. Id have to walk through the old rules and see just where the changes would have to be made.

Back to the scale though - by reducing the scale of the hexes to a tenth what they were (and Im definitely on board with it making the weapons a bit more believeable, not to mention the effect on sensor range - assumedly radar) does it give conventional thrusters any manueverability at all? Pretty minimal Im sure but at 30,000km per hex instead of 300,000km it seems a velocity sufficient to show up during a battle at this scale is at least possible.

 

[silburnl]

Back to the scale though - by reducing the scale of the hexes to a tenth what they were (and Im definitely on board with it making the weapons a bit more believeable, not to mention the effect on sensor range - assumedly radar) does it give conventional thrusters any manueverability at all? Pretty minimal Im sure but at 30,000km per hex instead of 300,000km it seems a velocity sufficient to show up during a battle at this scale is at least possible.

Note that the 'divide by 10' houserule was appropriate for the old edition. For the new it would appear to be 'divide by 3' which means that hexes will be 100,000 km across. A reaction engine would need to throw out something on the order of ten million G-seconds (which works out to ~55,000 Gs of thrust sustained for a combat turn) to give you a vector of 1-hex per turn, so the answer is no (or your definition of 'conventional thrusters' differs wildly from my own ).

Even with a 'divide by 10' houserule you need a sustained thrust north of 16,000 Gs to generate a 1-hex/turn vector - stutterwarp pseudo-velocities really are blindingly fast.

Regards
Luke

 

[rgrove0172]

That would curb stutterwarp maneuvering pretty steeply. Does it still give them a decisive edge over conventional thrusters? And what about interplanetary travel? It seriously slows their travel times there as well. Thats quite a major change in the setting. Wouldnt just altering the turn length be less dramatic?

 

[silburnl]

Not sure what you are getting at there - a 'divide by 3' houserule only reduces the size of hexes on the tactical board for spaceship battles. Stutterwarp pseudo-velocity is completely untouched by this. Indeed the point of the houserule is to bring the tactical scale into line with the quoted in-system cruising speeds for stutterwarp-enabled ships.

Regards
Luke

 

[rgrove0172]

Ok, thats what I was getting at. If the change brings their combat performance in line with their regular space travel figures, then its a great fix, and a must as far as Im concerned. The indirect changes to sensor and weapons range are incidental but in my opinion tolerable if not a welcome adjustment.