Colleagues, a bit of help with ship-combat change
- Thread starter Nerhesi
- Start date
Right.... Thought processes:
Meaningful evasive action involves moving your ship out of the volume of space your opponent is throwing fire into (which will usually be, more or less, centred on where you would be if you maintainted your straight line speed).
a) The amount of engine power I have available is an upper effective limit to evasive manouvres.
I partially agree with F33D - Pilot/1 is functionally not much worse than Pilot/100 when trying to pull evasive manouvres in a fat, slow Superfreighter. You only have 1G to start with and you have a hull several hundred metres in length, which means it takes you the better part of ten seconds to move the length of your own ship along a new velocity vector. Result: Evasive action should do virtually nothing.
By comparison, a Drinaxi Harrier-class gunship is about seventy metres long and pulls 5G flat out, and clear its own silhouette in little more than a second. Trying to hit it at a light-second's range with narrow lances of energy fire should therefore be meaningfully affected by its manouvres.
b) Dodging is only applied to beam fire, not missiles.
This is the rules, not my personal logic. As noted, there is no way you can see laser and near-C energy/particle weapons coming. This doesn't stop you jinking like two cats in a bag of itching powder but it means you can't dodge specific shots, instead you can just make your movement less predictable.
This increases the volume of space the other ship's fire has to sweep and hence means the actual salvo density is lower - as a result, the odds of a shot actually hitting you are lower too.
You could make evasive manouvres specific to a single firer - if you manouvre only in a plane perpendicular to a direct line to the attacker, you get the most angular displacement for the same expended engine power, but another attacker at a different angle would see significantly less movement in at least one axis.
Unless people want to get into 3D geometry during their weekly RPG sessions, however, I suggest that concept can go stuff itself and say that meaningful evasive manouvres should normally affect all firers equally. Let the GM deal with exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
c) Piloting skill should still affect evasive manouvres
This doesn't mean you're flying stick, but can be how rapidly and randomly you can change acceleration, and knowing how gunners and targeting computers 'think' - for example, how long do you want to burn on a single vector to try to convince an attacker it's a base vector change, not just an evasive manouvre? Too short and they won't buy it, too long and you're wasting that engine power in a predictable straight-line manouvre.
And, indeed, does. The pilot skill check needs to be passed to actually get the DM-2.
Assuming a 'normal' DEX/INT (depending on which you use - I'd recommend DEX for a fighter and INT for a capital ship), someone without Pilot wastes 2/3 of the thrust they use. With Pilot/0 2/3 of your thrust will give you successful dodges. With Pilot/2 it's more like 5/6ths.
So, I'm mostly in favour of Solution 1 - dodging affects everyone shooting at you in the same time period, needs a pilot check, and has a set upper limit (because DM-6 on anyone shooting at you, for example, would be ridiculous). I would shy away from pilot skill + Characteristic DM, because a 'generic' Navy Acadamy fighter pilot might be DEX 7, Pilot/0 out of basic training, but stick him in a Jester-class fighter and why would he not be able to dodge?
The way I work fixed weapon mounts is that you must use the 'help line up a shot' rule before you fire them. This way, your pilot has to be involved in aiming fixed mounts (which makes sense), and a task chain with a rubbish pilot makes it harder to hit.
Meaningful evasive action involves moving your ship out of the volume of space your opponent is throwing fire into (which will usually be, more or less, centred on where you would be if you maintainted your straight line speed).
a) The amount of engine power I have available is an upper effective limit to evasive manouvres.
I partially agree with F33D - Pilot/1 is functionally not much worse than Pilot/100 when trying to pull evasive manouvres in a fat, slow Superfreighter. You only have 1G to start with and you have a hull several hundred metres in length, which means it takes you the better part of ten seconds to move the length of your own ship along a new velocity vector. Result: Evasive action should do virtually nothing.
By comparison, a Drinaxi Harrier-class gunship is about seventy metres long and pulls 5G flat out, and clear its own silhouette in little more than a second. Trying to hit it at a light-second's range with narrow lances of energy fire should therefore be meaningfully affected by its manouvres.
b) Dodging is only applied to beam fire, not missiles.
This is the rules, not my personal logic. As noted, there is no way you can see laser and near-C energy/particle weapons coming. This doesn't stop you jinking like two cats in a bag of itching powder but it means you can't dodge specific shots, instead you can just make your movement less predictable.
This increases the volume of space the other ship's fire has to sweep and hence means the actual salvo density is lower - as a result, the odds of a shot actually hitting you are lower too.
You could make evasive manouvres specific to a single firer - if you manouvre only in a plane perpendicular to a direct line to the attacker, you get the most angular displacement for the same expended engine power, but another attacker at a different angle would see significantly less movement in at least one axis.
Unless people want to get into 3D geometry during their weekly RPG sessions, however, I suggest that concept can go stuff itself and say that meaningful evasive manouvres should normally affect all firers equally. Let the GM deal with exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
c) Piloting skill should still affect evasive manouvres
This doesn't mean you're flying stick, but can be how rapidly and randomly you can change acceleration, and knowing how gunners and targeting computers 'think' - for example, how long do you want to burn on a single vector to try to convince an attacker it's a base vector change, not just an evasive manouvre? Too short and they won't buy it, too long and you're wasting that engine power in a predictable straight-line manouvre.
And, indeed, does. The pilot skill check needs to be passed to actually get the DM-2.
Assuming a 'normal' DEX/INT (depending on which you use - I'd recommend DEX for a fighter and INT for a capital ship), someone without Pilot wastes 2/3 of the thrust they use. With Pilot/0 2/3 of your thrust will give you successful dodges. With Pilot/2 it's more like 5/6ths.
So, I'm mostly in favour of Solution 1 - dodging affects everyone shooting at you in the same time period, needs a pilot check, and has a set upper limit (because DM-6 on anyone shooting at you, for example, would be ridiculous). I would shy away from pilot skill + Characteristic DM, because a 'generic' Navy Acadamy fighter pilot might be DEX 7, Pilot/0 out of basic training, but stick him in a Jester-class fighter and why would he not be able to dodge?
The way I work fixed weapon mounts is that you must use the 'help line up a shot' rule before you fire them. This way, your pilot has to be involved in aiming fixed mounts (which makes sense), and a task chain with a rubbish pilot makes it harder to hit.
Great feedback guys, thanks a ton.
Just wanted to highlight a couple of facts for this conversation:
A) Pilot quality has generally been a significant deciding factor historically (right up there with craft quality and sometimes greater). Now before we jump and say this is light speed weapons and far future we're talking about;
B) Dodging, has never been about dodging AFTER the shot. Whether you're being hit by a light-speed beam, or a 20mm bullet going over 1000-2000 meters per second in 0-2 kilometer engagement range; we can all agree that dodging after the "firing" is useless if the firing is accurate.
C) Dodging, and maybe I should have been clearer, has always been about evasive maneuvering so that the target has a more difficult time hitting you. It is not about moving out of the way after you are fired upon.
Thanks and keep the feedback coming I'll update you on our gaming session events.
Just wanted to highlight a couple of facts for this conversation:
A) Pilot quality has generally been a significant deciding factor historically (right up there with craft quality and sometimes greater). Now before we jump and say this is light speed weapons and far future we're talking about;
B) Dodging, has never been about dodging AFTER the shot. Whether you're being hit by a light-speed beam, or a 20mm bullet going over 1000-2000 meters per second in 0-2 kilometer engagement range; we can all agree that dodging after the "firing" is useless if the firing is accurate.
C) Dodging, and maybe I should have been clearer, has always been about evasive maneuvering so that the target has a more difficult time hitting you. It is not about moving out of the way after you are fired upon.
Thanks and keep the feedback coming I'll update you on our gaming session events.
locarno24 said:
I'm not so worried about reasoning about why should matter as much as craft performance. History is rife with examples of aces surviving and people killed on their first missions, in the same exact craft. None of them dodged after being shot at first either (to any effect anyways as that would not have mattered due to bullet velocity and engagement range). They used their skill to be evasive in denying opponents easy shots while angling themselves for better shots. Translated into space combat, the maneuvers would be completely different but the practice remains the same.
It would be impossible to dodge an accurate shot after it is made. Therefore, "dodging" really means evasive action - which is what I would think it is now anyways. No one is gonna suddenly pull on a stick or press button to avoid a beam headed for them
So lets take a look at this -6 DM to everyone. By solution 1, youve spent I assume 3 thrust and gotten -6 DM.
Enemies firing at you:
1) Crack Gunner Gunner 4 Characteristic 3
2) Veteran Cunner Gunner 3 Characteristic 2
3) Regular Gunner Gunner 2, Characteristic 1
1) 7+ to hit. So ace gunner vs ace/near ace pilot (- 6 DM would require Piloting 4 characteristic 2 for example) would result in around a 58% chance.
2) 9+ for Vet
3) 11+ for Regular
These bonuses can ofcourse be modified by:
Lining up the shot
Fire Control Software
Lockon/Break Lockon
Evade software
Range
I'll give it a go and see
I doubt they will be up/or they will have a pilot capable of generating - 6DM on a regular basis.ShawnDriscoll said:
Not as easy, but we've found still near trivial.
Our gunners come out with a minimum of +4 DM to gunner (2 from characteristic, and 2 from Gunner skill). Its the minimum but also usually the average as it is more difficult to get higher without some bit of luck.
That means you're hitting on a 4+ without fire control software.
Even in combat Shawn, we've found out that with the target dodging (-2 DM), and a small application of fire control, or lining up the shot, it still becomes easy to hit. Especially when you consider that you don't usually have too much thrust to play with when it comes to dodging.
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
So two characters have +4 for their killing skill basically. They should be grateful I suppose instead of bored. Eventually their luck will run out and they will get hurt big time somehow. That might add some excitement to their lives.
CosmicGamer
Mongoose
or yelling to the engineer to push those drives a bit harder?DickTurpin said:
A good dogfight is typical for entertainment media and adventure and fun so I can see why this is in the rules even though it is less and less realistic as the tech level climbs. Isn't dog fighting pretty much a non needed skill in real life already with planes that use their electronics to lock on and hit a target that's not even visible?DickTurpin said:
I can see properly interpreting and using the technology as part of the different skills. ECM, evade software, sensors... Pilot (or tactician) gathering the info from the other crew and equipment/technology; interpreting it and accurately providing adjustments and feedback manually and/or via feedback to crew and systems.
To me, evade, is a better term than dodge and any house rule I made would not allow a dodge reaction for things that are faster than a characters reaction time, or the reaction time of what they are using. You don't see the bullet or energy weapon coming at you and then dodge it. You take evasive maneuvers to decrease the ability to "lock on" or increase the difficulty to target/hit you.
Taking evasive maneuvers, to me, could apply to multiple attacks, although I can also see it being most effective on the attacker you are "concentrating" on. Such as in man combat, you are looking at an attacker on your right and picking terrain based on partial cover or obstacles to vision between the two of you and you zig zaging based on their movements and adjustments to you but your not "concentrating" on the attacker on your left or behind you. In space, the crew and sensors and other tech like evade software may be "concentrating" on one ship vs another.
Spot on Cosmic.
Even in dog-fighting today and as far back as 50 years, you may have been able to dodge some "missiles", but you did not reaction-dodge a 1950s jet machine-gun. Perhaps that is where people are becoming sensitive. So lets stick to discussing evasive maneuvering now that we are clear that one is NOT talking about a reaction-after-the-shot-dodge.
Which brings up an interesting point... You are evasive vs a single target (with some exceptions), as evasion from another prespective could be completely useless.
Even in dog-fighting today and as far back as 50 years, you may have been able to dodge some "missiles", but you did not reaction-dodge a 1950s jet machine-gun. Perhaps that is where people are becoming sensitive. So lets stick to discussing evasive maneuvering now that we are clear that one is NOT talking about a reaction-after-the-shot-dodge.
Which brings up an interesting point... You are evasive vs a single target (with some exceptions), as evasion from another prespective could be completely useless.
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
So what is the aim of this game session? To kill the players off? To destroy all the other ships near them? Do the players want to play a spaceship combat game? Do they have other skills besides Gunner? Are they essential/main player characters for the game? When the Pilot says he's doing evasive moves, and the ship tosses and turns, are the Gunners still making their marks even when they are not facing a ship they're targeting? Are other ships able to shoot back, and do they make their mark ever?
Whatever the situation was/is, a bad roll will happen and that will begin the downward spiral for the crew. Their luck cannot last.
Also, are the players role-playing? Or are they just shooting stuff in space because those are the skills they rolled up for their characters? Or did they buy those skills on purposes?
Whatever the situation was/is, a bad roll will happen and that will begin the downward spiral for the crew. Their luck cannot last.
Also, are the players role-playing? Or are they just shooting stuff in space because those are the skills they rolled up for their characters? Or did they buy those skills on purposes?
ShawnDriscoll
Cosmic Mongoose
Echo!
Replied from my blackberry. God I hate that thing. Will reply soon.
Ok - so originally I wanted to say, whoah whoah lets back up a bit.
This is has nothing to do with a certain style of adventure, or that someone is complaining because they died or it was too easy. It is merely an analysis by several experienced gamers who thought to allow Piloting skill to play a heavier role in ship combat.
This was not based on any sort of attempt at realism; consider it more an attempt to balance an equation on both sides (where player characteristics/skill only figured into one side). If you want to think of it as getting closer to Classic Traveller, you can as well.
Ok - so originally I wanted to say, whoah whoah lets back up a bit.
This is has nothing to do with a certain style of adventure, or that someone is complaining because they died or it was too easy. It is merely an analysis by several experienced gamers who thought to allow Piloting skill to play a heavier role in ship combat.
This was not based on any sort of attempt at realism; consider it more an attempt to balance an equation on both sides (where player characteristics/skill only figured into one side). If you want to think of it as getting closer to Classic Traveller, you can as well.
