Hard SciFi Conventional Space Combat

rgrove0172

Mongoose
Im taking the rather dramatic step of removing combat while in stutterwarp from my 2300 universe. Space combat will therefore be resolved on the conventional thrusters/delta V/newtonian physics level. Anyone have a suggestion for a rules set?
 
I would probably modify Attack Vector: Tactical for the 2300AD universe,
but I have to admit that this tactical boardgame is probably too complex
for most groups of players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_Vector:_Tactical
 
Depends on how much of MgT you are keeping in your spacecraft. If you have kept most elements of the Core Rules/2300 AD nomenclature and systems, all you need is a some vector based movement?
These do not have the more silly elements of MgT space combat. Different animals here:

Classic Traveller game Mayday which keeps vector movement, but simplifies it by putting it on a hex map with some arrow counters to track directions of thrust.

Classic Traveller Book 2 has better 2D vector movement but is better suited for miniatures.

Basically the only big things you need to convert/redetermine are detection ranges, fuel/thrust points a spacecraft has available and the same for missiles.
 
RGrove, I'm struggling to understand exactly what it is you do want. I've followed your various posts across numerous forums, seen the responses, and I am just unclear on your search.

You seem to want wargame crunch; but, no, you tell us, you're really into RPG. Yet none of your several posts across several forums actually details a campaign or scenario you're pursuing. You say you're interested in hard science, then when the science is presented you confess you're not really into the hardest parts of the hard science. You seem to be exclusively concerned with starship combat (AFAIK I can't recall a post by you that is not concerned with starship combat), but seem dissatisfied with the fact that, in hardest hard SF, the very idea of starship combat is inherently and intrinsically absurd... in other words, if you really want verisimilitude, don't schedule starship combats. They're absurd.

If you want combats, then you're going to have to play along that they're not—on the face of them—ridiculous and settle on some system that resolves them. And there is an entire E-M spectrum of resolving systems. Many of us can tell you all about them.

When I was a kid I wanted to write a hard SF story about a guy with radioactive blood. But when I did the research, as a kid, I quickly discovered that radiation and blood were diametrically hostile concepts. They can't just exist in the same room together. This is kind of on the order of spaceships and combat.

I'm sorry, I am honestly not trying to be rude. I would like to help you. Perhaps if you tell us the destination, perhaps we can build the map to help you get there.
 
Jeraa said:
Doesn't MgT High Guard have an alternate vector-based combat method included?


pg. 83. But, it take into account constant acceleration i the instructions if I remember correctly.
 
pg. 83. But, it take into account constant acceleration i the instructions if I remember correctly.

It does. Each 'move unit' is about 17 1/2 kilometres - i.e. the distance you move whilst applying a 1G 'burn' in a straight line for 6 minutes.

You move your existing speed/heading, then manouvre, moving 1 'space' for every thrust, then re-work out your new 'base velocity' from where you started the turn to where you are now.

It's the same mechanic used in Full Thrust - it's not mathematically perfect but for something quick and useable it's not bad at all. It has the virtue of making multiple ship engagements make sense - the 'range track' system is really simple but falls apart in a three-body problem.
 
locarno24 said:
pg. 83. But, it take into account constant acceleration i the instructions if I remember correctly.

It does. Each 'move unit' is about 17 1/2 kilometres - i.e. the distance you move whilst applying a 1G 'burn' in a straight line for 6 minutes.

You move your existing speed/heading, then manouvre, moving 1 'space' for every thrust, then re-work out your new 'base velocity' from where you started the turn to where you are now.

It's the same mechanic used in Full Thrust - it's not mathematically perfect but for something quick and useable it's not bad at all. It has the virtue of making multiple ship engagements make sense - the 'range track' system is really simple but falls apart in a three-body problem.

Ah, thanks Just glanced at it when I got the book.
 
I considered vector movement for the TL9 ships of Orbital, but started going crazy trying to tie in the rules in the core book. Instead I compromised and based the combat rules on the Core book, with one or two significant amendments to give the sense and the feel of slow, rocket-based space combat.

We talk about 'burn allocations' rather than thrust ratings, ranges are reduced and there is a section on trajectory, which I will paste here:

Traveller players may be used to encountering other ships in space, hailing them, and then rendezvousing to dock, ever in deep space. In Orbital, the trajectory is king. What the pilot has decided to do with the ship dominates its entire voyage and makes deviations difficult, if not impossible. Imagine a DSV as a bullet, fired from a rifle that slows itself down to come to rest as it reaches the target. If it spies an enemy bullet shooting across its path, it can do little about it! It has used a third of its fuel in the acceleration, and saves another third for the deceleration. Space combat out in the vacuum between planets is virtually impossible. Space combat occurs around, or near, worlds. Spacecraft do not move wherever they please, as if on a hex map. They are all in orbit around something, even if it is the Sun. All vehicles are moving in circles or ellipses. Few are pointing toward their destination, they are arcing their way there in long orbital curves around the Sun or a planet. Instead of thinking about starship combat as a hex map, it is more helpful to think of spacecraft travelling along a racecourse around the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Titan, etc. Each world has its own racecourse of tracks, each track a higher and higher orbit. Flying from Earth to Mars, for example, could be seen as leaving one racetrack, to temporarily follow the Sun’s racetrack, finally arriving at Mars and joining that planet’s racetrack. Everything is circles and ellipses.

We assume that the attacker and the target are in approximately the same orbit, going the same direction. Of course vehicles can change their orbit to intercept if desired, but this takes time ... and fuel. All space combat is interception, an aggressor is closing on a stationary target (perhaps a OPM in orbit), or on a fleeing target. Sometimes the aggressor may be stationary and not manoeuvring, waiting for a target vehicle to approach. When two craft are moving towards one another, in the Orbital setting, this is achieved by the aggressor accelerating toward the target and the target carrying out braking manoeuvres to slow itself. None of this alters the rules given on TMB p. 147, but should always be borne in mind.
 
Mithras said:
Traveller players may be used to encountering other ships in space, hailing them, and then rendezvousing to dock, ever in deep space. In Orbital, the trajectory is king. What the pilot has decided to do with the ship dominates its entire voyage and makes deviations difficult, if not impossible. Imagine a DSV as a bullet, fired from a rifle that slows itself down to come to rest as it reaches the target. If it spies an enemy bullet shooting across its path, it can do little about it! It has used a third of its fuel in the acceleration, and saves another third for the

This even applies to Grav M-drives to a great degree. Imagine: You are halfway to Mars from Earth. You meet a ship coming from Mars going to Earth. You cannot rendezvous with them. By the time to have come to a "stop" you are at Mars... ;)
 
Banded Mongoose,
Let me see if I cant clarify. I want my game and the system used to be strong in the roleplaying department. Im an avid boardgamer but when I RP, I want the focus of the game on the characters. I have not yet been able to begin my Sci-fi campaign, or even run a single session, the reason for my lack of details on the game “Im running”. The preliminaries of making sure my system will address all my needs have consumed, and sadly exhausted, most of my time. Im very interested in the hard science but more specifically how it translates in game terms. Lectures on physics, astronomy or nuclear power make for great reading but unless they address a game concern and provide a clear answer, they are just that, fun reading.
My attention to space combat stems simply from the fact that it is that area that appears to have the most issues, in my opinion. Character design, task resolution, advancement, small scale combat etc are all pretty much good to go, but space combat (a major part of the campaign I intend to run) is a mess. The rules that are available are problematic as they are and don’t address a whole list of possible situations I fully expect to encounter in our first session.
As to the absurdity of space combat – that statement follows what I have experienced on this forum from time to time. Is the statement logical? Sure. Is it based on sound principles? Absolutely. But does it help? To reply to questions about how to run space combat in a genre where its almost a certainty with the notion that its basically impossible and should just be avoided – doesn’t help.
Now to take the approach that since its all just silly fantasy anyway you might as well just pick some lame system and go with it is equally unhelpful. Obviously I want a fairly consistent and scientifically logical approach to that part of my game and it seems willing to go to some extremes to try and get it. Coughing it aside again, isn’t helpful. Im not pointing at you mind you, just making the observation. Taking the stance that all space combat should be eliminated from hard science fiction adventure is pretty ballsy, and not likely to be very popular.
Don’t worry, I don’t take your post as rude at all, in fact I completely understand how I might have confused some with my meriad of issues.
What it comes down to is this. I want to play in the 2300AD universe. Im not satisfied with the antiquated classic system but find that using Traveler, with its rules scattered across a dozen different books and publications, is a little chaotic for my liking, especially when there are some glaring issues that I must amend with significant house rules. (such as conventional space combat) because they simply don’t exist. Im not daunted by meaty rules systems in the least, as long as they are concise, complete, and organized. If I have to spend this much time and energy collating all the various rules to get a working copy, Im thinking perhaps there is a better option out there I can use.
 
rgrove0172 said:
Banded Mongoose,
Let me see if I cant clarify. I want my game and the system used to be strong in the roleplaying department. Im an avid boardgamer but when I RP, I want the focus of the game on the characters. I have not yet been able to begin my Sci-fi campaign, or even run a single session, the reason for my lack of details on the game “Im running”.

Nathan gave the best way to do it. I don't know what problems you would have with his suggestion...
 
Yes, Nathan's suggestion is a good one, but it doesnt address the lack of a decent crossover between vehicle weapons and the very limited Stutterwarp Vessel variety - a glaring issue in my opinion as you have no doubt read in my posts. And how to insert the various vector utilizing drives into the ship design system? There is quite a bit or Rule Making in there, adding to the chaos which I find Traveller to already be suffering from. If there were a simpler solution, one all encompassing version... I wojuld be all for it. I had momentary hopes that T5 would be my savior.... ick.
 
rgrove0172 said:
Yes, Nathan's suggestion is a good one, but it doesnt address the lack of a decent crossover between vehicle weapons and the very limited Stutterwarp Vessel variety - a glaring issue in my opinion as you have no doubt read in my posts. And how to insert the various vector utilizing drives into the ship design system? There is quite a bit or Rule Making in there, adding to the chaos which I find Traveller to already be suffering from. If there were a simpler solution, one all encompassing version... I wojuld be all for it. I had momentary hopes that T5 would be my savior.... ick.


You plan on fighting ground tanks in deep space? As far as changing the drives in 2300, might as well play straight MgT. Or, import stutterwarp into Mgt
 
F33D said:
You plan on fighting ground tanks in deep space? As far as changing the drives in 2300, might as well play straight MgT. Or, import stutterwarp into Mgt

Err no but to accept that no combat whatsoever occurs in orbit between space vessels incapable of stutterwarp is a big pill to swallow. Orbital patrol space planes intercepting an frieghter on a moon run, or perhaps a stutterwarp vessel within the wall attacked by a conventional shuttle. What about an invasion fleet for that matter - those ships full of troops and equipment have to land, and surely there is something in orbit (where stutterwarp doesnt function very well) to resist them. What about a conflict breaking about between rival belters using their rocket propelled escavators and transports with hastily fashioned weaponry. I could go on you get the idea. The idea that the only fighting in space is between stutterwarp vessels at those blistering speeds and rediculous distances is ludicrous.
 
rgrove0172 said:
F33D said:
You plan on fighting ground tanks in deep space? As far as changing the drives in 2300, might as well play straight MgT. Or, import stutterwarp into Mgt

Err no but to accept that no combat whatsoever occurs in orbit between space vessels incapable of stutterwarp is a big pill to swallow. Orbital patrol space planes intercepting an frieghter on a moon run, or perhaps a stutterwarp vessel within the wall attacked by a conventional shuttle. What about an invasion fleet for that matter - those ships full of troops and equipment have to land, and surely there is something in orbit (where stutterwarp doesnt function very well) to resist them. What about a conflict breaking about between rival belters using their rocket propelled escavators and transports with hastily fashioned weaponry. I could go on you get the idea. The idea that the only fighting in space is between stutterwarp vessels at those blistering speeds and rediculous distances is ludicrous.

Got ya. I wasn't aware of the full depth of the rules insanity in 2300.
 
Insanity it may be. The space combat system involves only stutterwarp powered vessels, anything else is literally a sitting duck (it doesnt move) and there are absolutely no rules for using conventional weapons on spacecraft. Stutterwarp warships have understandably specific and hightly advanced weapon systems to engage each other at 900,000km or so and traveling at several thousand km a second. But how do these weapons work against a lowly rocket powered barge or for that matter how would a ballistic missile fired at a disabled stutterwarp ship inflict damage. The rules are terribly incomplete.
 
Ah, now I see more of your dilemma. I did not get myself. Must go back to evil scientists college and kill my instructors for failing me.

As a suggestion, I might suggest the 3+ map approach as has been done with games that cross scales like Battletech Universe. Well, it rather did with Aerotech when Aerospace Fighters transition from the space map, to the atmospheric map to the Battletech ground map.

Since stutterwarp and conventional do not mix well in combat, don't worry about it.
A center map, representing the nearby gravity well where stutterwarp does not work. Rules here operate with your standard Newtonian principles. Ships and missiles with thrust based systems work fine. Missiles and ships with stutterwarp only just, well, stop. As they should due the principles of stutterwarp technology. Energy weapons not needing stutterwarp (like standard lasers) operate "normally". For these purposes, I would again recommend Mayday just for the vector based movement. Modify your distances and scales to the size of your hexes.

An intermediate map perhaps where stutterwarp efficiency is reduced to speeds less than light speed. Here the central map is but one hex. I am not too familiar with 2300 space combat, but it was my understanding that there is a point that stutterwarp efficiency drops off to less than light speed. On this map, thrust based vehicles move at the speeds indicated by the scale chosen. Stutterwarp based vehicles move at their speed indicated by the scale chosen. Each operates within their drives principles.

An outer map which represents true stutterwarp efficiency at work. Here, the intermediate map is represented by one hex. Vehicles and missiles based on only thrust just, well, stop. They are just too slow unless their vector was so high that they might go from one hex to another in a reasonable amount of combat turns.
 
Back
Top