Combat AAR with some observations

[apoc527]

My group had its first real couple of fights on Monday night. I have a number of observations that I will share after I recap the fight.

I'm not going to give the whole story because my players might see this, but the basic set-up is this:

Playing The Traveller Adventure, instead of helping Gvouzdon steal the brooch, one of the PCs goes in and tricks the museum guy into selling it to him. The PC then takes it back to the ship and Gvouzdon eventually boards as a new friend/working passenger (gunner).

The people after the brooch (you know who this is if you have the adventure) investigated and found security camera footage of the PC who bought the brooch and they begin to follow them. They finally catch up to the PCs at Aramanx High Port after the PCs deliver Oberlindes and his aide there. The PC who bought the brooch (his name is Mr. Hess) is also the broker, so he goes out to broker some deals and gets kidnapped by "Agent Smith." Agent Smith interrogates him and asks him nicely where the brooch is, but Mr. Hess lies through his teeth and his caught in a web of falsehoods. At one point, Smith bashes him in the face with a cyberarm, knocking him out. A medic brings him back (Mr. Hess is notoriously frail--346 for his physical stats) to 2 End.

The rest of the PCs begin an investigation and eventually locate Mr. Hess. A short fight ensues, but it's really more of a dual hostage situation because the PCs successfully snuck up on one of the "agents" guarding Mr. Hess. The two remaining agents holding Mr. Hess retreat towards the airlock of the warehouse unit they are in and the PCs follow and attack when it's clear they are going to escape with Mr. Hess. The group's Doctor and Captain, Dr. Anderson (yes, Agent Smith and Anderson, who, as a surgeon is entitled to the title "Mister"...you can see where this is going) makes several amazing rolls with an automatic shotgun on burst fire using HEAP rounds and kills both agents, one of whom was holding Mr. Hess as a shield.

Meanwhile, Agent Smith had taken a "hit squad" of mercs to the PC's ship berth in an attempt to locate the brooch. The PCs arrive and are effectively ambushed, but take cover in some "berth stuff" (barrels of water, boxes, etc). This is where the fight really starts.

After everyone rolled exceedingly high initiative with the help of a decent Tactics check (I had given the ambushers an automatic 12 pursuant to the rulebook), things got off well. There was lots of reactions and lots of initiative being burnt. Multiple reactions results in very inaccurate fire, so for a while, nobody was hitting anything (for cover, range, and dodges, the DMs were routinely getting up to -6). Then we all learned that if you were going to dodge a lot, you might as well spend the next round Aiming and then try not to dodge too much. This began to result in hits as people would aim for a full round (+3), then aim and fire in the next (total +4 Aim, usually +2 for HUD or +1 for laser sight). Many, many rolls were made at a -1 or +1 DM, which felt about right.

Despite the fact that the 4 mercs had 12mm assault SMGs and Agent Smith had a 14mm very heavy handgun and the PCs had mostly 9mm autopistols, a laser pistol, a pistol-style SMG, and a body pistol, the PCs were beginning to win. This is primarily because one PC (the doctor), had that autoshotgun with HEAP rounds. Poor Agent Smith caught a round in the neck and took like 21 damage after already being somewhat injured from an earlier laser burn. He died instantly. Several PCs took some pretty solid hits and one had to burn one of his two "fate points" (house rule) to stay alive (otherwise, he would have been killed).

All in all, combat flowed fairly well considering none of us really knew what we were doing. My observations are that even a small amount of Protection goes a long way and that most characters are going to fall unconscious far before they are killed. This is probably less true with autofire, where multiple rounds may impact the target before they can fall down and stop being a threat. Another lesson is that even 3d6-3 weapons can be deadly when well aimed. All in all, it was a good fight and I learned the limits of the PCs.

 

[Stainless]

Then we all learned that if you were going to dodge a lot, you might as well spend the next round Aiming and then try not to dodge too much. This began to result in hits as people would aim for a full round (+3), then aim and fire in the next (total +4 Aim, usually +2 for HUD or +1 for laser sight). Many, many rolls were made at a -1 or +1 DM, which felt about right.

Yep, but remember there is a maximum of +6 for aiming, while they are aiming, they can't dodge, and the baddies can aim as well.

 

[justacaveman]

Not a bad combat. But look at most of the weapons the characters are using. They're using handguns that are almost a century old by our standards, yet they're running around in starships while conducting business in an interstellar empire.

This is like current day mercenaries running around using cap and ball pistols while taking jet flights around the world.

Look at one of the current military contractor corporations on the planet earth. Blackwater equips its people with state of the art weapons and equipment, and conducts weapon/body armor research and development. Many of their guys are using bullets that will punch through body armor, yet act like a hollowpoint on the other side (They're made in Texas by LeMas/RBCD Performance Plus.). They typically have laser sights, nightvision goggles, grenades, and body armor etc.. And that's what is available now.

I've noticed that most Traveller campaigns seem to be rather low tech, and limit the weaponry to what is commonly available today. Still, your initial combat with your group sounded like a good fun learning experience.

 

[locarno24]

Look at one of the current military contractor corporations on the planet earth. Blackwater equips its people with state of the art weapons and equipment, and conducts weapon/body armor research and development. Many of their guys are using bullets that will punch through body armor, yet act like a hollowpoint on the other side (They're made in Texas by LeMas/RBCD Performance Plus.). They typically have laser sights, nightvision goggles, grenades, and body armor etc.. And that's what is available now.

I've noticed that most Traveller campaigns seem to be rather low tech, and limit the weaponry to what is commonly available today. Still, your initial combat with your group sounded like a good fun learning experience.

Unless you get into the realms of guided 'smart bullets' and similar, there's only so much technology required to disable a human body....and only so much body armour you can still walk whilst wearing.

 

[rust]

Besides, walking around with high-tech weaponry and in body armour is
often misunderstood as an invitation for a hostile encounter with the lo-
cal police's SWAT teams ... 8)

 

[apoc527]

Also, I like guns.

I tend to create higher TL versions of the original weapons anyway. For example, I made electrothermal propellant versions of 2 pistols and 2 SMGs. This makes them much more powerful firearms ("advanced combat pistols" anyone?).

At any rate, the main reason I didn't use gauss pistols or laser weapons for the bad guys is that I had no idea what would happen to the group. I didn't want to just murder them all in the first fight!

And rust is quite right, they had to have weapons that could be concealed and carried around the starport.

 

[justacaveman]

Perfectly understandable not wanting to slaughter the PC's.

I was thinking more along the lines of improved ammo for the PC's, or pocket-sized laser pistols (with limited ammo), or smaller semi-auto gauss pistols etc..

It seems that most of the weapon advances in Traveller have focused on military weapons, when in reality, there is a lot of research and development in the civilian market. Military organizations are very resistant to change, often holding onto weapons and tactics well past their usefulness (Think Charge of the Light Brigade, the American Civil War, or World War I.).

BTW I do have some examples I've worked out for anyone who wants them.

 

[rinku]

It seems that most of the weapon advances in Traveller have focused on military weapons, when in reality, there is a lot of research and development in the civilian market. Military organizations are very resistant to change, often holding onto weapons and tactics well past their usefulness (Think Charge of the Light Brigade, the American Civil War, or World War I.).

Hmm... not sure why Charge of the Light Brigade is included here. That wasn't a case of outdated tactics or equipment, but misunderstood orders and light cavalry being sent into a deathtrap.

Modern equivalent would be a unit in hummers being directed to assault dug in anti-tank guns with infantry support across a minefield. Doesn't mean that infantry in light transport vehicles are "well past their usefulness", just that it was a stupid order.

In terms of civilian development... well, as far as I can see most guns are pretty much the same as they were a century ago. A few advances in materials (plastic has replaced wood) and a handful of new concepts (submachine guns and assault rifles are the only major ones that spring to mind).

Also keep in mind that in game terms there really may not be that much difference. Glock 17 vs a 1935 Browning Hi-Power? Autopistol. Revolvers haven't changed significantly since gunpowder was replaced by nitro powders. Theoretically they've been obsolete since before the Great War, but they still seem to be rather popular.

Of course, it depends on what you consider to be "civilian". Probably you really meant "paramilitary".

 

[justacaveman]

I was too specific when I said Charge of the Light Brigade. I should have said the Crimean War. This war was fought using the weapons and tactics of the Battle of Waterloo 40 years earlier, ignoring the advances in weapon technology that occured during those years. While the large amounts of casualties in the American Civil War were a direct result of increases in weapon ranges, and a failure to develop tactics that took this fact into account when attacking.

 

[rust]

I should have said the Crimean War. This war was fought using the weapons and tactics of the Battle of Waterloo 40 years earlier, ignoring the advances in weapon technology that occured during those years.

Mostly, but not completely. There were also minie balls, trench warfare,
indirect artillery fire, telegraphs for communications, railraods for logis-
tics, and so on - less modernization than would have been possible, but
still quite different from Waterloo.

Besides, with very few exceptions the armies of this world always prepare
for the last war, and almost never for the next one ... :wink:

 

[justacaveman]

It was the Crimean campaign that saw the introduction of the rifled musket, the rifled and breech loading cannon and the trench system which gave added protection and the advantage to the defender while undermining the attacker especially if he was on horseback.
The tactic of a mass cavalry charge was outdated but still cherished by old-fashioned generals.
Hence, technological changes and out-dated tactics led to a very high casualty rate in the war with attacking armies being decimated by defending forces. Approximately 100,000 were killed in action or dead from their battle wounds.

 

[rust]

The tactic of a mass cavalry charge was outdated but still cherished by old-fashioned generals.

Well, they had all those nice cavalry units with their prestigious positions
for noble officers, and no idea what else to do with them ... :wink:

Seriously, if they had learned from the fate of the cavalry at Waterloo,
they could well have avoided the worst tactical blunders, but the lesson
had to become even more brutal before they finally understood it at the
beginning of the first World War.

 

[justacaveman]

The blunders were even worse in the American Civil War. You would have thought that they would have learned something from the Crimean War, but they made the same mistakes all over again. And this time the weapons were even more deadly. And of course they used tactics from the previous century in WW I. You have to wonder sometimes how intelligent we really are.

:roll:

 

[locarno24]

I tend to create higher TL versions of the original weapons anyway. For example, I made electrothermal propellant versions of 2 pistols and 2 SMGs. This makes them much more powerful firearms ("advanced combat pistols" anyone?).

Well, that's the thing. The concept of 'a gun' allows a degree of improvement without becoming a different technology.

~ Better chemistry allows a smaller amount of propellant for the same muzzle velocity, or a better muzzle velocity with a smaller round. Either way, a single cartrige gets smaller for the same organic damage.

~ Moulded insensitive propellant allows a caseless design. This means that (a) rounds can be made more efficiently shaped and closer-packed in a magazine, and (b) no 'brass ejection' mechanism is required, making the gun mechanically simpler - and probably more efficient, since there's less propellant gas leakage.

~ Nanotechnology meets tribology; improved metals/plastics/ceramics allows far harder-wearing barrels, or barrels which can be made very cheaply yet meet ballistic standards (temporarily). The Pro-T series disposable firearms* (in Signs & Portents a while back) is a good example of something possible that doesn't yet exist.



* Made largely of plastics and ceramics, cheap, reliable for mag #1-to-about #3, pre-loaded, and hermetically sealed until cocked for the first time. Ideal backup weapon.

 

[Eisenmann]

The blunders were even worse in the American Civil War. You would have thought that they would have learned something from the Crimean War, but they made the same mistakes all over again. And this time the weapons were even more deadly. And of course they used tactics from the previous century in WW I. You have to wonder sometimes how intelligent we really are.

:roll:

What were the alternative tactics in the American Civil War? Available technology limited the day's tactical options. Maneuver warfare was extremely limited for a couple of reasons. The only vehicles were horses. Vertical envelopment is tough when all you've got are hot air balloons.

Single-shot weapons limited maneuver due to the inability of the infantryman to provide cover fire making bounding movement impossible.

The war was bloody for many reasons. One was that the infantry weapons in use were at their stage's technological peak; the Minie ball, post Eli Whitney mass manufacturing precision, etc.

Lessons were learned from past conflicts and there were many forward thinkers on both sides of the conflict. Cavalry tactics learned and developed by the belligerents are big influences today on the modern battlefield.

About modern military contractor weapons, once in country their small arms are provided by State Department for various reasons.

 

[Eisenmann]

Well, there where some quick-firing single shots availabel in the US Civil War. They where just not introduced on a large scale but this was the first war where breach loading rifles where used outside a "single guys individual purchase"

Cavalry tactics where "ride up in attack and die". Most cavalry in the second half where used as Dragoons. The exeption where the raiders but those rarely went up against entrenched lines.

Transportation included rail and ships (including steamships) and both where extensively used. The steamboat wars on the rivers played an important role from what I gleaned out of "Battle Cry of Freedom" / James M. Mcpherson)

Yep, some. Everyone has to have repeater weapons to improve maneuver. Cavalry was used as dragoons because of the difficulty to maintain concentration of fire while maneuvering.

Rail and ships while important logistically and/or in specific areas of operation are not general tactical maneuver options. While both modes proved important they do not solve the problems of maneuver on the battlefield.

 

[rust]

What were the alternative tactics in the American Civil War?

An option would have been not to use slowly advancing massed infantry
formations in attacks against fortified enemy positions, and there were
other brute force approaches without any visible tactical skill (or inter-
est in the survival of the soldiers). In fact, some of the battles of the
American Civil War look very much like attempts to get as many of the
own troops wounded or killed as possible.

 

[Eisenmann]

What were the alternative tactics in the American Civil War?

An option would have been not to use slowly advancing massed infantry
formations in attacks against fortified enemy positions, and there were
other brute force approaches without any visible tactical skill (or inter-
est in the survival of the soldiers). In fact, some of the battles of the
American Civil War look very much like attempts to get as many of the
own troops wounded or killed as possible.

How else would you do it limited with the weapons and materiel of the day?

 

[rust]

How else would you do it limited with the weapons and materiel of the day?

As it was done by the most successful military leaders of previous cen-
turies, who had even more limited weapons and material available: Ma-
neuver, avoid frontal assaults on "hardened" positions, be and strike
where the enemy is not. As Maurice of Saxony remarked, battle is the
solution of the desperate.

At least since Waterloo it should have been obvious that tightly packed
infantry formations will suffer extreme losses and in the end bleed an
army dry when used in frontal assaults across open ground. Unless one
has a lot of soldiers to spare and does not care whether they live and die,
this can only be done if there is no other option, as a standard tactic it is
both ... unwise ... and callous.

 

[Eisenmann]

How else would you do it limited with the weapons and materiel of the day?

As it was done by the most successful military leaders of previous cen-
turies, who had even more limited weapons and material available: Ma-
neuver, avoid frontal assaults on "hardened" positions, be and strike
where the enemy is not. As Maurice of Saxony remarked, battle is the
solution of the desperate.

At least since Waterloo it should have been obvious that tightly packed
infantry formations will suffer extreme losses and in the end bleed an
army dry when used in frontal assaults across open ground. Unless one
has a lot of soldiers to spare and does not care whether they live and die,
this can only be done if there is no other option, as a standard tactic it is
both ... unwise ... and callous.

With 150 years between then and now it may look obvious. The technology of the day limited tactical options. That's the unfortunate truth. The belligerents were no dummies. They weren't out to get their own men killed. The most famous led from the front.

Maneuver warfare did not develop independent from the infantryman's standard weapon. The modern notion of small unit tactics developed as the individual infantryman's fire power increased.

* Fire power = capability to direct force at an enemy