Hit location table

[Jak Nazryth]

In the core book on the hit location table under space combat,
The third hit on a maneuver drive is described as "disabled". The other drives are described as "destroyed". Should the maneuver drive say "destroyed" also?

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I believe so. The general rule is the second hit disables and the third hit destroys. No reason the M-drive would be any different than any other system.

 

[locarno24]

The general rule is the second hit disables and the third hit destroys. No reason the M-drive would be any different than any other system.
I believe so. The general rule is the second hit disables and the third hit destroys. No reason the M-drive would be any different than any other system.

Except it's not the same - the second hit is not disabled, it's 50% power. Therefore it's not unreasonable that the next step is disabled but repairable.
Remember that the M-Drive is taking external hits, whilst the J-Drive is taking internal hits.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Good point.
So should there also be M-drives on the internal hit table?
I've been bouncing this around in my head for a few weeks now, but It's time to come up with an expanded hit table, maybe using 3d6. There are after all quite a few things left out on the current hit location table. Tonight is my game so I will post something later this week for discussion.

 

[jwpacker]

Good point.
So should there also be M-drives on the internal hit table?
I've been bouncing this around in my head for a few weeks now, but It's time to come up with an expanded hit table, maybe using 3d6. There are after all quite a few things left out on the current hit location table. Tonight is my game so I will post something later this week for discussion.

Adding a third die is both un-Travellerlike (when was the last time you rolled three dice in Trav for anything but weapon damage?) and also a different bell curve, with only five more options to choose from. I recommend that you try a d66 table instead, to really open things up.

 

[locarno24]

I would say yes with a but.

One of the big benefits of the system as is is simplicity. It's not perfect but it is quick. Having both internal-version hits and external-version hits for the same location is asking for confusion and annoyance if they have differing effects.

Also, 3d6 is a good idea, but be warned that it's not simply a matter of transferring things over; the bias to the central numbers is much, much higher in 3d6 - nearly 70% of the results being between 8 and 13. Whilst you get an extra 5 results to play with, less than a tenth of the rolls will ever land in them.

D66 is a good suggestion - it also allows you to do disproportionate biases to different things, if you want. Theoretically, you could do a pro-rata based on what proportion of the volume each thing occupies on a class-by-class basis, although that'd take some time to work out...

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I like the D66 idea.

Take your total tonnage and divide by 66 = that is your design point.

For Example, a 100-ton ship would have a design point of 1.5 tons. So every internal item greater than 1.5 tons would have a to-hit spot. Each stateroom could be tracked separately.

BUT, to use this system effectively, DECKPLANS will be needed so that actual volumes can be used, rather than design volumes (so you get to have hits in a corridor!).

I think it would work very well for a group of players rushing around the ship, handling damage control. You would actually be able to point to the deck plan and say "The missile caused an explosion HERE".

External hits would be harder though, since we would need to know how much of the surface area is taken up by sensors, weapons etc.

It can be done, but quite a bit more info will be needed about the various components.

 

[jwpacker]

Breaking things up by tonnage is a great idea for the dedicated GM. You can go so far as to break things down by specific stateroom if that's your desired level of accuracy, or just list stateroom, for example.

But remember, d66 is only 36 possible combinations.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Good point.
So should there also be M-drives on the internal hit table?
I've been bouncing this around in my head for a few weeks now, but It's time to come up with an expanded hit table, maybe using 3d6. There are after all quite a few things left out on the current hit location table. Tonight is my game so I will post something later this week for discussion.

Adding a third die is both un-Travellerlike (when was the last time you rolled three dice in Trav for anything but weapon damage?) and also a different bell curve, with only five more options to choose from. I recommend that you try a d66 table instead, to really open things up.

3d6 are used for speculative trading. That was what got me thinking about going to 3d6. It allows for a few more specifics like (external component) or (ships boat), that type of thing.
I did think of 6d6 bu honestly I just didn't want to do THAT much work! :lol:

 

[locarno24]

BUT, to use this system effectively, DECKPLANS will be needed so that actual volumes can be used, rather than design volumes (so you get to have hits in a corridor!).

I think it would work very well for a group of players rushing around the ship, handling damage control. You would actually be able to point to the deck plan and say "The missile caused an explosion HERE".

The problem with this approach is that the most common damage result is (and should be) 'hull' and 'structure' - figuring out how many slots to assign to that is a bit of a dark art, since (unless you've taken reinforced hull or similar) they don't have a volume.