Does Effect apply in Starship combat?

[Nerhesi]

God I hate BB.

Thankfully I've never been combat nor would I wish to be. Thankfully it doesn't take combat experience to realise that those small arms won't do any damage to a modern tank.

In any case, the argument was how much luck should play a role in combat. I can just as easily make the example of the polish lancers vs zee germans.

Point is, hood vs Bismark, sure - similar and doesn't need a lot disbelief. The actual relevance comes down to whether you think a beam/pulse laser vs armor 12+ is:

A) a lancer or some small arms vs 1 foot of armor
Or
B) hood vs bismark

Whether you choose A or B is really an adhoc decision based on personal/group preference - just don't try to prove one is more logically valid however. Besides, there are tons of 4d6 and higher weapons/bays that are designed to penetrate higher armor so it's not like we need to ADD a house rule to make lower class weapons more effective.

 

[dragoner]

I did have some training and brief duty as an officer a long time ago, though I don't count myself as an expert in combat; but as cavalry officers, in the common jargon of our instructors, they used the term of a "Parthian Shot" for a lucky hit. The Polish Cavalry vs tanks is mythical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_at_Krojanty but I remember reading how small arms fire had caused Tiger tank crews to abandon their vehicles, late war.

But this is an abstract, how much you want morale to play a role in combat is up to you, I know it was covered in earlier traveller versions, and I liked using it. Chance is always there, but whatever you want as a fun factor should be most important; but I would agree that realistically some lightly armed merchant should stand little chance against a military ship. I like using effect because it gives the players more agency in role playing the scenario rather than just telling them they are screwed.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Players insisting on shooting rifles at tanks in an RPG and getting upset that they damaged a tank somehow should be playing a wargame that better simulates combat, rather that trying to win the RPG on every turn.

 

[locarno24]

I would like to see the mechanics presented in that draft, because it parallels some work I have been doing for an alternate set of combat rules....

Without reproducing too much and being murdered in my sleep by mongoose's highly trained ninja assassins, the rules were essentially as per the current rules for attack rolls 'to hit'.

Armour values were the same, as was the result of taking damage (rolls that would cause hull/structure damage or knock out systems, or hurt your characteristics for PC-scale combat).

The only major difference is that instead of damage for a particle beam being listed as '3D6', it was 'x3+4' - i.e. the damage if you hit was equal to three times the effect of the attack roll, plus four.

It tends to result in slightly lower damage, because whilst rolling a D6 for damage after a hit means you've got as much of a chance of a '6' as a '1', getting effect 6+ for an attack generally takes some doing.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The only major difference is that instead of damage for a particle beam being listed as '3D6', it was 'x3+4' - i.e. the damage if you hit was equal to three times the effect of the attack roll, plus four.

Too much mafs.

 

[locarno24]

Possibly one reason they junked it as a mechanic. Although not inherently worse than figuring out modifiers and effect to begin with.

 

[JP42]

Too much mafs.

Lord, I hope that wasn't a consideration!

I suspect it had more to do with the fact that static multipliers tend to lead to weird artifacts in results. Particle beams in the system as presented would do a minimum of 7 damage, and then only up in increments of three, for example. Now, maybe that's a good thing, the minimum (armor 6 has no effect on a particle beam hit), but the weirdness of damage increasing by 3 would have some interesting effects on where the damage lands on the chart.

 

[Ishmael]

but it makes more sense and rewards higher levels of success.
I think I'll change my personnel damage system to use that with the level of damage as proportional to the bullet's momentum.

 

[Infojunky]

I would like to see the mechanics presented in that draft, because it parallels some work I have been doing for an alternate set of combat rules....

Without reproducing too much and being murdered in my sleep by mongoose's highly trained ninja assassins, the rules were essentially as per the current rules for attack rolls 'to hit'.

Armour values were the same, as was the result of taking damage (rolls that would cause hull/structure damage or knock out systems, or hurt your characteristics for PC-scale combat).

The only major difference is that instead of damage for a particle beam being listed as '3D6', it was 'x3+4' - i.e. the damage if you hit was equal to three times the effect of the attack roll, plus four.

It tends to result in slightly lower damage, because whilst rolling a D6 for damage after a hit means you've got as much of a chance of a '6' as a '1', getting effect 6+ for an attack generally takes some doing.

That i'll bet was pretty much the paragraph I wanted to see.... Thanks....

 

[locarno24]

Particle beams in the system as presented would do a minimum of 7 damage, and then only up in increments of three, for example.

Actually minimum 4. Effect 0 is still a (glancing) hit, after all. That's one of the big downsides with the system - a roll of '8' to hit will do virtually nothing with most weapons, but (given the 2D6 distribution) is actually quite likely.

The counter-argument is that it (a) does avoid the highly unsatisfying case where you sight up an ACR on a target, roll a double six for your 'to hit' check, then just as you're feeling a bit smug, completely spam the damage roll and manage a total damage that doesn't even get through cloth armour. The point of the effect=damage roll is, as I understand it, meant to represent the words 'boom.' 'headshot.' and having effect 5+ translate into >18 damage automatically (ACR was x2+8) means that you're not going to ruin the moment.

 

[JP42]

Actually minimum 4. Effect 0 is still a (glancing) hit, after all. That's one of the big downsides with the system - a roll of '8' to hit will do virtually nothing with most weapons, but (given the 2D6 distribution) is actually quite likely.

Realized that after I posted, but was away from the keyboard - Even less useful in that case.

The counter-argument is that it (a) does avoid the highly unsatisfying case where you sight up an ACR on a target, roll a double six for your 'to hit' check, then just as you're feeling a bit smug, completely spam the damage roll and manage a total damage that doesn't even get through cloth armour. The point of the effect=damage roll is, as I understand it, meant to represent the words 'boom.' 'headshot.' and having effect 5+ translate into >18 damage automatically (ACR was x2+8) means that you're not going to ruin the moment.

It's a noble goal - fewer rolls per combat means that things go more quickly. It abstracts the notion of an accurate shot in terms of defeating armor, as well as the location of the hit, from flesh wound to headshot. It's not great that it loses so much granularity (do you recall what the highest multiplier was? Your examples have been x3 and x2) - that would be a major concern of such a damage system.

 

[locarno24]

Err.....yeah.

[Sounds of rustling paper]

Hmm...Biggest mod I can see is the Rocket Launcher at x5. Man-portable Artillery is actually a lower multiplier but with a whacking great static bonus (x3+8 for PGMP, for example). Spacecraft bay-mount particle beams are the same (x3+8).

Well, actually the biggest I can see is the Pocket Nuke at x20, but those actually still work this way, multiplying your explosives check effect.

 

[Nerhesi]

Thats really interesting - reminds me of another space game with a similar approach... Iron Winds game.. oh! Silent death. Your to-hit roll also included your damage!

Damage was basically high, medium, or low, which would be the highest, lowest, or middle of 3 dice. Ties were beneficial (for the shooter) in that they added to the damage so 3-3-4 would 6 damage if low, 6 damage if medium, or 4 damage if high.

Anyways, effect as damage would have resulted in generally lower damage unless you ended up with a highly effective gunner, then it would be a little nuts. Gunnery, Accurate weapons, some minor cybernetic skill enhancement, a characteristic modifier of +2 and your to hit DM is suddenly a +6, not counting fire control and so on.

I would hate to be on the receiving end of +5 effect X 3 + 4... 19 damage? Ouch

 

[locarno24]

Well... characteristic mods of +2 or better are pretty rare, and skill augmentation costs a tonne, but I agree with the point; you can rack up a fearsome difficulty modifier between all the bonuses you can get from various places.

Which would, I guess, reliably help better troops/ships be much, much scarier - which I'm not inherently opposed to.

 

[Mytholder]

Remember, that damage system was also tied to the old timing/effect system, which capped Effect at 6 and didn't factor skill DMs directly into Effect. Your cyber-augmented super-soldier will hit more consistently (as he can hit with a lower roll), but low rolls won't translate into huge damage.

 

[Solomani666]

Got drug back into pondering Starships, and the question still looms; "Does Effect apply to Starship combat in the same way as it applies to personnel and vehicular combat?

Effect IS used in the ship to ship combat rules... For missile combat.


IMTU

Effect is used. If not, then a ship with armor 6 becomes impervious to attack by any and all single beam laser turrets.

Ships with military sensors that make a successful sensor lock have a range fix and can tune all of the same type beam weapons from each single turret to strike at the same point on the target ships hull. Thus a scout ship equipped with a triple beam turret that acquires a sensor lock can make a normal 3x1d6 attack or a single 3d6 attack against a target to overcome armor and defenses. The method of attack must be stated beforehand. Effect is still added per each weapon.

I also apply my rule that effect 0 attacks do 1/2 (half) damage.
An effect of 6+ will always do at least 1 point of damage per weapon regardless of defenses.

 

[Nerhesi]

Effect is used. If not, then a ship with armor 6 becomes impervious to attack by any and all single beam laser turrets.

I also apply my rule that effect 0 attacks do 1/2 damage.
An effect of 6+ will always do at least 1 point of damage per weapon.

Im sure that armor 6+ and 12+ being immune to certain weapons is by design.

Your rules reduce the efficacy of weapons that take triple turret mounts as well. A 3d6 particle beam has to beat a targets armor by 13+ to do 3 single hits. Now your 3 beam lasers are easily meeting or exceeding that damage for less cost. They're gauranteed to do a single hit each if they hit... which is something particle beam will never do if the target has 3+ armor.

Also be careful, as now light fighters have become deadly, rather than useless against armored targets - which is something that seems to be part of the OTU (as quoted from sector fleet and other sources). Same source that quotes lasers being only useful for point defense in military engagements.

Let me know how it works out if you ever end up putting your PCs' personal smuggler/trader/armed merchant vs like a light pirate carrier for example (funny enough, the exact scenario we left off last night we played).

 

[Solomani666]

Effect is used. If not, then a ship with armor 6 becomes impervious to attack by any and all single beam laser turrets.

I also apply my rule that effect 0 attacks do 1/2 damage.
An effect of 6+ will always do at least 1 point of damage per weapon.

Im sure that armor 6+ and 12+ being immune to certain weapons is by design.

Your rules reduce the efficacy of weapons that take triple turret mounts as well. A 3d6 particle beam has to beat a targets armor by 13+ to do 3 single hits. Now your 3 beam lasers are easily meeting or exceeding that damage for less cost. They're gauranteed to do a single hit each if they hit... which is something particle beam will never do if the target has 3+ armor.

Also be careful, as now light fighters have become deadly, rather than useless against armored targets - which is something that seems to be part of the OTU (as quoted from sector fleet and other sources). Same source that quotes lasers being only useful for point defense in military engagements.

Let me know how it works out if you ever end up putting your PCs' personal smuggler/trader/armed merchant vs like a light pirate carrier for example (funny enough, the exact scenario we left off last night we played).

The effect of 6 needed for a triple beam laser turret to do 3 points of damage against a ship with 12 armor makes this highly unlikely.

A particle beam attack against the same 12 armor target will do a minimum of only 1 point of damage, an average of 4 points of damage, and an unlikely but potential 12 points of damage.

------

When combined with my rules on sensor locks, a triple beam laser can become almost as deadly as a particle beam weapon and a triple pulse laser even more so. That's what sandcasters and reflec are for. [Addition to original comment]

------

Light fighters are now not the truly worthless things they were before, but still unlikely to do any real damage against well armored targets except in large numbers.

 

[Nerhesi]

The effect of 6 needed for a triple beam laser turret to do 3 points of damage against a ship with 12 armor makes this highly unlikely.

A particle beam attack against the same 12 armor target will do a minimum of only 1 point of damage, an average of 4 points of damage, and an unlikely but potential 12 points of damage.

I may have misunderstood your rule. Effect 0 attacks do 1/2 damage? So it's not 1/2 regardless of armor to a minimum of 1. I see.

Still a significant paradigm shift though - an interesting one:

Light fighters not as useless
Heavier fighters/attack craft more useless - kind of a weird point that would drive you towards star wars style imperial fighters because armor in general gets defeated more easily so hull/structure remains king (more penetrating hits)
Lighter weapons not as useless
Combat in space will be quicker
and so on so on

Hey if it works for you, sounds good