Capital Ship Design/Combat

locarno24

Cosmic Mongoose
Have been looking at the capital ship & small craft design rules, and Barrage Combat rules in High Guard recently.

I was wondering if anyone's had much experience in running capital ship engagements (as in multiple multi kdTon warships, using the Barrage Rules)?

The more I look at it, the more it looks like a nice simplification - and very fast to use - albeit with a few oddities from the system:

I do like the rule for fighter swarms - the DM-4 to hit and limit of the number of hits equal to firing weapons seems nice in theory, although in practice the fact that a VHY large particle bay gives such a whacking huge DM on your barrage attack roll means that you're killing one fighter per big gun per salvo without fail.

Capital ship critical hits and radiation hits seem pretty rare - unless the ship is essentially unarmoured, getting a net roll of 8+ seems pretty unlikely, and dropping the radiation damage band by the armour means it's pretty unlikely to achieve much. That said, it does making tracking damage a damn sight faster, even on (very) big ships.

The way the single roll is resolved, a well-aimed beam laser is more likely to hurt an armoured target than a badly aimed particle beam (fair enough), but fire control, gunnery skill and upgrades can quickly outweigh the weapon damage.

One odd artefact of this is that pulse lasers revert to being the flak weapons of choice (as only the number of laser mounts matters) whilst beam lasers are better against ships (weapon damage 1 versus weapon damage 2 with a DM-2 actually works out better, especially when range modifiers are better too); designing a ship with dozens of triple pulse laser turrets is better than reduced numbers of accurate beam lasers (the best point defence weapon in 'normal' scale).

Equally, because 1D6 is only worth one point of barrage damage, a Very Heavy Yield beam laser is the equal of a particle beam, and the most devastating thing you can pack for a weapon is...well...almost anything, as long as it has a dedicated Fire Control/5. Go figure.

The splitting up of barrages is a little bit odd - a barrage being a minimum of either ten guns or all the guns a ship carries means that the heavy bay mounts on, say, a 5,000 dTon destroyer will never all fire - if you have 10 or less, you can only fire 70-80% of them in a barrage, and the remaining two or three then don't seem to be fireable under the barrage rules (whilst the 'remainder' of your dozens of turret mounts will be enough to fire a second barrage).

One other thing to note is that it's very bloody. Capital ships seem very fragile (against other similar-sized warships, anyway). A putative 5 kilo-dton destroyer with armour 12, 5 50-dton bays, and two batteries of 10 particle beam turrets - not an especially heavy armament compared to what you could pack it with - can blow an equivalent ship to dust bunnies in an average of three turns.


Anyone actually used it? Half tempted to do a few capital ship/barrage engagements, if anyone would be interested in a quite-a-lot-of-credits squadron...
 
Yes, played a few capital ship enagagements last year, agree with your points, the system works, once you have teased out what the author actually meant and is fairly fast once you get used to it. The main amendment needed, as discussed in other threads, is to better represent the impact of the more powerful weapons against armour, either by allowing +1 to the barrage for each 1d6 of damage, or subtracting one point of aromour protection per dice of attacking weapons.

It is bloody, the first enagagement I ran still had capital ships having triple particle beams, some capital ships were cut in half by the first particle beam barrage. This really illustrated that, for any semblance of game balance, single particle beams only in turrets, as now in the amendments and corrections.

What I haven't done, yet, is fight an engagement using the different range modifiers we discussed last month, I think it will improve the barrage system, but needs playtesting to confirm.

Oh, and armour. The battle waggons need as much armour as they can possibly get, and the best availabe meson screens. Some of the designs in Fighting Ships, eg the Azhanti High, the Gionetti and the Arakoine with 4, 6, and 6 points of armour respectively are death traps, any serious cruiser or battleship needs 10 or 12 minimum, and ideally up to the available TL. Thin armour = no ship.

Egil
 
The main amendment needed, as discussed in other threads, is to better represent the impact of the more powerful weapons against armour, either by allowing +1 to the barrage for each 1d6 of damage, or subtracting one point of aromour protection per dice of attacking weapons.

It does. Or at least that's my reading of it.

High Guard said:
. Add up the protection offered by the defences, and then subtract it from the individual weapon damage score to determine the final DM.

Which means that your DM to hit is your individual weapon damage (say 3 for a turret-calibre particle beam), minus your armour (12). Whereas a large bay-calibre gun (9) will end up with a better (or at least less bad) DM in the same situation.

It is bloody, the first enagagement I ran still had capital ships having triple particle beams, some capital ships were cut in half by the first particle beam barrage. This really illustrated that, for any semblance of game balance, single particle beams only in turrets, as now in the amendments and corrections.

I can imagine. Particle turrets aren't as bad as heavier guns but since they only occupy a turret slot, they're bad enough. I suspect massed particle barbettes would be even scarier.

The one weapon I can't quite see what to do with is the Railgun bay - can the barrage damage listed be right? I mean, I get that it's really 4 3D6 damage shots, and arguably better than that (since you can mix and match dice to ensure at least one or two hits), but surely the individual weapon damage remains 3 (like the barbette)?

Less bothered about Meson screening - I don't normally put Meson weapons in MTU campaigns. But I agree that armour is life or death; without it, 100 dTons worth of hull generates 2 hull and 2 structure, but also a hardpoint for a triple turret which can pack 6 barrage damage worth of pulse lasers - enough to waste the same amount of hull in a single accurate volley.

You mean the range modifiers for different calibres of weapon? I have to say it might be worth a look. It never really makes sense that 100 dTon 'ship-smashers' can be used as anti-fighter weapons just as well as point defence turrets. I remember the thread, but do you have a link? Might be worth a try. Can knock together some 'generic' TL12 warships and let them slug it out.

A similar issue (which is a common thing traveller-wide) is the concept of armour value - since, apparently, I can make a fighter with armour 12, why wouldn't I? (see your comments, which I agree with) - it seems odd, however, that a 200,000 dTon battlecruiser cannot exceed the same armour value (worse, since the fighter swarm has an 'innate' 4 points of armour), no matter how thick I would be prepared to slab crystaliron on the side...

I guess reinforced hull sort of reflects that, but since there are only 2 'brackets' for reinforced hull for capital ships (>3,000 dTon and >20,000 dTon) you get rapidly diminishing usefulness out of the upgrade. I would have thought it more sensible for it to provide a proportional bonus to the number of points you already have (with some sensible minimum). As it stands it's stupidly good for small craft and largely useless for big battlewagons. Unless - which is nowhere mentioned and merely a possible suggestion - this is a 'per section' value?
 
locarno24 said:
The one weapon I can't quite see what to do with is the Railgun bay - can the barrage damage listed be right? I mean, I get that it's really 4 3D6 damage shots, and arguably better than that (since you can mix and match dice to ensure at least one or two hits), but surely the individual weapon damage remains 3 (like the barbette)?

With such a limited range the utility of the railgun is going to be quite limited, also the damage per weapon for barrages ignores the limited armour piercing capabilities of the railgun compared to, say, a partical beam mount. If you take that into account the railgun shouldn't be too much of a problem.

locarno24 said:
Less bothered about Meson screening - I don't normally put Meson weapons in MTU campaigns. But I agree that armour is life or death; without it, 100 dTons worth of hull generates 2 hull and 2 structure, but also a hardpoint for a triple turret which can pack 6 barrage damage worth of pulse lasers - enough to waste the same amount of hull in a single accurate volley.
Or a bay able to generate a barrage damage of 9, over a longer range, and more able to defeat armour (or ignore it if you allow meson weapons) and inflict radiation hits as well.

locarno24 said:
You mean the range modifiers for different calibres of weapon? I have to say it might be worth a look. It never really makes sense that 100 dTon 'ship-smashers' can be used as anti-fighter weapons just as well as point defence turrets. I remember the thread, but do you have a link? Might be worth a try. Can knock together some 'generic' TL12 warships and let them slug it out.
Yes, that thread. Will try to post a link in a moment (sadly, my Computer skill is very much -3).

locarno24 said:
A similar issue (which is a common thing traveller-wide) is the concept of armour value - since, apparently, I can make a fighter with armour 12, why wouldn't I? (see your comments, which I agree with) - it seems odd, however, that a 200,000 dTon battlecruiser cannot exceed the same armour value (worse, since the fighter swarm has an 'innate' 4 points of armour), no matter how thick I would be prepared to slab crystaliron on the side...

I guess reinforced hull sort of reflects that, but since there are only 2 'brackets' for reinforced hull for capital ships (>3,000 dTon and >20,000 dTon) you get rapidly diminishing usefulness out of the upgrade. I would have thought it more sensible for it to provide a proportional bonus to the number of points you already have (with some sensible minimum). As it stands it's stupidly good for small craft and largely useless for big battlewagons. Unless - which is nowhere mentioned and merely a possible suggestion - this is a 'per section' value?

I suppose the idea is that the greater mass of the capital ship makes up for it having the same thickness of armour, works out well in practice, once the armour is defeated on something like a heavily armoured fighter, there is a good chance that one or two hits will cause disabling, or even annihilating damage (causing 10s of MCr to explode), on a cruiser it will just scratch the hull. Works out quite well in practice, though I have sometimes played around with the idea of reducing the maximum armour allowed for small craft.

Egil
 
Locarno24,

Are the ships of the line you're building featuring Honking Big Spinal Mounts of about 10% of ship volume ?

If they arent, this could be where your lack of Capital Ship Criticals is coming from.

Oh, and the Azhanti High Lightning class is, and has been under every design of Traveller, a ship not fit to go anywhere near the line of battle.
 
Are the ships of the line you're building featuring Honking Big Spinal Mounts of about 10% of ship volume ?

If they arent, this could be where your lack of Capital Ship Criticals is coming from.

Possibly. Because they roll to hit - rather than using the barrage table where a 4+ is good - every hit must in theory be a net 8+, i.e. a critical.

This is the link to the recent discussion of weapon ranges in space;

viewtopic.php?f=89&t=51893

Ta.

So...

adjacent range +4, close range +2, short range +0, medium range -2, long range -4, very long -6. For spinal mounts, the -6 adjustment in HG applies at all ranges, but no further adjustments needed.

Note that the use of lasers or sandcasters for point defence against missiles or boarders remains unchanged, i.e. +0 at adjacent, because such targets are small, especially in the case of missiles that are fast moving and expose a very small profile.

For missiles and torpedoes, effective range by the speed and amount of fuel carried, as HG, to hit modifiers, -2 at adjacent, +0 at close, short, medium long and very long, -2 at distant.

I suspect you're right - this will make fighting in close range suicide as turrets will tear ships to pieces.
 
locarno24 said:
So...

adjacent range +4, close range +2, short range +0, medium range -2, long range -4, very long -6. For spinal mounts, the -6 adjustment in HG applies at all ranges, but no further adjustments needed.

Note that the use of lasers or sandcasters for point defence against missiles or boarders remains unchanged, i.e. +0 at adjacent, because such targets are small, especially in the case of missiles that are fast moving and expose a very small profile.

For missiles and torpedoes, effective range by the speed and amount of fuel carried, as HG, to hit modifiers, -2 at adjacent, +0 at close, short, medium long and very long, -2 at distant.

I suspect you're right - this will make fighting in close range suicide as turrets will tear ships to pieces.

Thanks, in all fairness to the other contributers to the thread there was quite a lot of discussion, especially about whether the bonuses for adjacent, close and short were too generous, and how different types of weapon mount might be able to acquire targets more effectively than others at closer ranges. My final take on this was considerably modified, viz,

"1. For all energy weapons, maximum effective range is the range given in the core or HG, e.g. for a partical beam, long range. Shots beyond that are ineffective (NB range can be increased using a HG enhancement). This, in itself, significantly reduces the ranges suggested in HG and CRB.
2. To hit adjustments for turret and bay weapons firing at ships or small craft changed to the following, adjacent range +0, close range +0, short range +0, medium range -2, long range -4, very long -6. For spinal mounts, the -6 adjustment in HG applies at all ranges, but no further adjustments needed.
3. The type of mount and the speed of the target needs to be considered at closer ranges, for all bays firing at a target at short, -1 per 1 point of thrust the target has, at close -2 per 1 point of thrust, at adjacent bays cannot engage a moving targe. For spinal mounts firing at short, -2 per 1 point of thrust, at close and adjacent unable to acquire moving targets. For turrets and barbettes +0, i.e. no adjustment.
4. The use of lasers or sandcasters in turrets for point defence against missiles or boarders remains unchanged, i.e. +0 at adjacent.
5. For missiles and torpedoes, effective range by the speed and amount of fuel carried, as HG, to hit modifiers, -2 at adjacent, +0 at close, short, medium long and very long, -2 at distant."

Egil
 
locarno24 said:
I suspect you're right - this will make fighting in close range suicide as turrets will tear ships to pieces.

Yes, and also no :lol:

If the opposing warships have got a sensible level of armour, i.e. at least 12 points, then they should be virtually immune to fire from lasers, either beam or pulse, though partical beam turrets will present some problems. The real threat is from partical beam bays (powerful enough to punch through even thick armour most of the time) and meson bays (if you don't have sufficient screens, anyway). At longer ranges nuclear missiles are also not destructive enough to achieve much, torpedoes are, but can be shot down by point defence. Partical beams and mesons continue to be a threat, though my suggested range modification makes them slightly less accurate (and so effective) at long range than previously.

And finally there is the ship killers, spinal mount weapons, quite hard to target (and the weaker partical spinal mounts can be blocked by armour, while good meson screens should defeat the weaker meson beams), but an effective hit will start knock lumps off even big capital ships.

Egil
 
If the opposing warships have got a sensible level of armour, i.e. at least 12 points, then they should be virtually immune to fire from lasers, either beam or pulse, though partical beam turrets will present some problems.

With the to hit modifiers as described, no. If there were (as I'd misunderstood) to hit bonuses at closer ranges, even light weapons can kick the proverbial out of armoured ships.


Okay... given that rules set, some simple ships for an initial engagement.



20,000 dTons - which I believe is the 'light cruiser' bracket

Don't need a full ship record list - armouries, briefing rooms and equivalent don't really matter

20,000 dTon TL12 CH, Wedge Hull.
3 sections, each 133 Hull / 133 Structure
Crystaliron Armour/12 (18 vs particle weapons & nukes due to radiation shielding)

Thrust/3
Sensors DM+2 x 3
Fire Control/4 x 3

Particle Spinal/E, 400 Damage
Port VHY Particle Bay Barrage (20/40 Bays), 120-Particle-Long-6, DM+2, 20 Radiation
Starboard VHY Particle Bay Barrage (20/40 Bays), 120-Particle-Long-6, DM+2, 20 Radiation
Laser Turret Barrage (24/30 Turrets), 144-Pulse Laser-Short-2, DM-2 OR Laser Point Defence, 90 Lasers
 
Egil,

When Im building a warship, the questions go like this order.

1. What size a ship am I building ?

2. What jump do I need for the role ?

3. How big a Spinal Weapon can I jam in ?

4. Given 1-3, what number of g's is vaguely reasonable ?

5. How thick a Meson and Damper Screens can I shoehorn in ?

6. What kind of armour plating can I put on ?

7. Add in staterooms, auxilary power, sensors, gymnasium, briefing room, Captains Shoe Closet.

8. Must. Remember. Galleys.

9. Must. Remember. Sanitary. Facilities. And airlocks !

10. Oh yeah, do any secondary weapons fit in the remaining spare volume ? Maybe some turrets ?
 
Quick Run-Through of Combat (NOT using Egil Skallagrimsson's range modifiers - will try again with to compare)

Alpha versus Beta, two light cruisers of the designs described above.
Assume long range at the outset, both ships fully at battle stations.

Initiative

Alpha: 1[D6]+2[Crew Skill]+4[Effect of Tactics (Naval) check]=7
Beta: 5[D6]+2[Crew Skill]+0[Effect of Tactics Naval) check]=7

Orders

Alpha: Line Up Spinal Mount! - New initiative 5
Beta: Line Up Spinal Mount! - New initiative 5

Annoyingly the same initiative. For no better reason than alphabetical order, Alpha can shoot first if they are the same initiative.

Alpha Action 1: Fire Spinal Mount

To Hit: 8[Target]-6[Spinal Mount]-0[Dodge Failed]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2[Crew Skill]
Roll: 4 [Miss]

Beta Action 1: Fire Spinal Mount

To Hit: 8[Target]-6[Spinal Mount]-0[Dodge Failed]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2[Crew Skill]
Roll: 7 [Miss]

Alpha Action 2: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 1
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield] = -6
Roll: 7=1=0% Damage

BetaAction 2: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 1
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield] = -6
Roll: 8=2=0% Damage

Alpha Action 3: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 2
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield] = -6
Roll: 9=3=25% Damage

30 Damage split between Location 6 [Forward Section] and [Main Section]

Alpha Action 3: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 2
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield] = -6
Roll: 5=-1=0% Damage

Alpha Action 4: Sensor Lock
Check: 7[Roll]+2[Sensors DM]+2[Crew Skill]=11
Sensor Lock, Attack DM+1

Beta Action 4: Sensor Lock
Check: 11[Roll]+2[Sensors DM]+2[Crew Skill]=15
Sensor Lock, Attack DM+1

Alpha Action 4: Increase Initiative
Check: 8[Roll]+2[Crew Skill]=10
Initiative +2

Beta Action 4: Increase Initiative
Check: 8[Roll]+2[Crew Skill]=10
Initiative +2

Status
Alpha: Hull 133/133/133, Structure 133/133/133, Initiative 9
Beta: Hull 133/118/118, Structure 133/133/133, Initiative 9

Pretty irrelevant for the first turn. With the particle weapons at DM+0 at long range there's no real reason to close; the pulse lasers won't do squat unless someone takes multiple armour hits.
 
Why is it a bad thing that tertiary batteries arent doing anything to highly armoured battlewagons ?
 
Why is it a bad thing that tertiary batteries arent doing anything to highly armoured battlewagons ?
It's not. Just observing.

Orders

Alpha: Line Up Spinal Mount! - New initiative 7
Beta: Line Up Spinal Mount!, Defensive Posture - New initiative 3

Alpha Action 1: Fire Spinal Mount

To Hit: 8[Target]-6[Spinal Mount]-2[Dodge]-1[Defensive Posture]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2[Crew Skill]
Roll: 4 [Miss]

Beta Action 1: Fire Spinal Mount

To Hit: 8[Target]-6[Spinal Mount]-0[Dodge Failed]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2[Crew Skill]+1[Sensor Lock]
Roll: 8 [Hit]

400 Damage-18 x 30 Armour: 0 Barrage Damage, 40 Residual Damage to location 4 [Main Section]
System Damage: Hull - 20 Extra Hull Damage
Radiation Damage: 40/6/2[Radiation Shielding] = 3 radiation Damage, Damage Band 1
No Crew Hits

Alpha Action 2: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 1
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-2[Defensive Posture]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield]+1[Sensor Lock] = -7
Roll: 7=0=0% Damage

Beta Action 2: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 1
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-2[Dodge]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield]+1[Sensor Lock] = -7
Roll: 4=-3=0% Damage

Alpha Action 3: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 2
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-2[Defensive Posture]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield]+1[Sensor Lock] = -7
Roll: 9=2=0% Damage

Beta Action 3: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 2
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield]+1[Sensor Lock] = -5
Roll: 10=5=75% Damage

90 Damage split between location 2 [Engineering Section] and [Main Section]

Alpha Action 4: EW
Alpha - 7, Beta - 4
Sensor Lock Broken

Beta Action 4: EW
Alpha - 2, Beta - 10
Sensor Lock Broken

Alpha Action 5: Increase Initiative
Check: 4[Roll]+2[Crew Skill]=6
Initiative unchanged

Beta Action 5: Increase Initiative
Check: 7[Roll]+2[Crew Skill]=9
Initiative +1

Status
Alpha: Hull 133/28/88, Structure 133/133/133, Initiative 7
Beta: Hull 133/118/118, Structure 133/133/133, Initiative 8

Ouch. Spinal Mounts hurt. After only two hits, the Alpha's outer hull has been all but cut in half.
Against barrage fire, it shows what a difference even a small DM (like sensor locks) can make - the presence of that +1 changed 60 damage into 150... it's a bit of a reverse compared to normal fights - since effect doesn't add to damage with starship guns like it does in personal combat, and (once fire control, DEX, Gunner (Turrets) et al stack up) rolling to hit is normally a bit of a formality.
 
Orders

Alpha: Line Up Spinal Mount!, Defensive Posture - New initiative 3
Beta: Line Up Spinal Mount!, Defensive Posture - New initiative 4

Not very imaginative on the orders, I know. But for a ship big enough to split up barrage fire so the drop in max-shots-per-barrage doesn't affect it, Defensive Posture is essentially a free, permanent dodge. Damn The Torpedoes! is +1 to both sides - so only useful where you're already at a better to hit roll than the enemy - and Focus Fire, whilst in theory ideal for a single-duel engagement, has a higher initiative cost for a +1 for you, than Defensive Posture's -2 for your enemy (and means your opponent will fire first at an easier target!). Things like Target That Section are probably more use for really big ships - where hitting the same section twice in a row is quite hard.

Beta Action 1: Fire Spinal Mount

To Hit: 8[Target]-6[Spinal Mount]-0[Dodge Failed]-0[Range]-2[Defensive Posture]+4[Fire Control]+2[Crew Skill]
Roll: 5 [Miss]

Alpha Action 1: Fire Spinal Mount

To Hit: 8[Target]-6[Spinal Mount]-2[Dodge]-2[Defensive Posture]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2[Crew Skill]
Roll: 4 [Miss]

Beta Action 2: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 1
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-2[Defensive Posture]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield]+1[Sensor Lock] = -7
Roll: 6=-1=0% Damage

Alpha Action 2: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 1
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-2[Defensive Posture]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield]+1[Sensor Lock] = -7
Roll: 3=-4=0% Damage

Beta Action 3: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 2
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-2[Defensive Posture]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield]= -8
Roll: 10=2=0% Damage

AlphaAction 3: Fire Particle Bay Barrage 2
Defensive DM: 6[Weapon Damage]-18[Armour + Radiation Shielding]-2[Defensive Posture]-0[Range]+4[Fire Control]+2 Crew Skill]+2[Very High Yield]= -8
Roll: 10=2=0% Damage

Beta Action 4: Sensor Lock
Check: 5[Roll]+2[Sensors DM]+2[Crew Skill]=9
Sensor Lock, Attack DM+1

Alpha Action 4: Sensor Lock
Check: 7[Roll]+2[Sensors DM]+2[Crew Skill]=11
Sensor Lock, Attack DM+1

Beta Action 4: Increase Initiative
Check: 5[Roll]+2[Crew Skill]=7
Initiative unchanged

Alpha Action 4: Increase Initiative
Check: 8[Roll]+2[Crew Skill]=10
Initiative +2

Status
Alpha: Hull 133/13/73, Structure 133/133/133, Initiative 9
Beta: Hull 133/118/118, Structure 133/133/133, Initiative 7


I take back my previous comments about how bloody the game is - once you start stacking up decent armour and defensive orders, it's actually quite hard to hurt anything. Yes, the spinal mount is freaking lethal, but salvo fire from 40 massive particle guns is really not doing very much...

Also - really do like these combat rules. I genuinely think it may be faster to play out a combat between two 20 kilodTon ships with these rules than two 400-or-so dTon ships with the normal rules....
 
locarno24 said:
Yes, the spinal mount is freaking lethal, but salvo fire from 40 massive particle guns is really not doing very much...

At the scale of those ships, each of those "massive particle guns" is about 0.5% of ship volume.

Relatively speaking, they are a single laser turret on a 200 dton ship.

The big investment in the E-gun is what does the damage, and thats how it should be.
 
Back
Top