How "tactical" is MGT combat?

[apoc527]

That's the question. Im not defining tactical, so you tell us what you think it means in terms of an RPG and if you think combat in MGT meets that definition.

I haven't played yet, so i don't know for sure either way. To me, though, tactical means that the game is more than just an exchange of blows or shots with each side absorbing damage until the other goes down. For example, i know cover is important in MgT and cover usually tends to create more tactical combat. Weapons also seem relatively deadly compared to armor and "hit points", and that relationship can also lead to combat with a tactical feel.

 

[rust]

I think it depends a lot on the amount of effort one is willing to put in-
to a combat scenario.

With a big (room for maneuvers, lines of defence, etc.) and complex
(buildings, vegetation, prepared positions, etc.) "battlefield" and some
differently equipped (vehicles, weapons, body armour, etc.) combatants,
a truly "tactical" combat including the use of all relevant skills should be
no problem.

On the other hand, with only few similarly equipped combatants in a small
open space one can only get a "shootout", because there is nothing that
would allow the use of "tactics" beyond "fire till he falls".

 

[CosmicGamer]

In MGT, only the unit commander gets a tactics roll and only once at the beginning of combat. The effect of tactics gives an initiative bonus to the unit. This is the mechanics of tactics in MGT. The rest of any tactics is left up to the players to use the rules.

But the game can be as tactical as you want. To me, part of RPG rules should be the use of role playing. So any 'tactics' not specifically covered in the rules could still be used with the GM resolving.

While I like a good tactical game, I always have a little bit of issue with tactics in a RPG.
1) A great deal of a characters tactics are determined by the players skill/knowledge (or lack thereof) of combat and the combat rules. The characters tactical skill often plays a minor part.
2) When combat becomes all about rules and tables and die roll 'tactics', the role playing often gets thrown out the window.

The following is a list of common modifiers to attacks which might help you determine how tactical the detailed rules are.

Aiming, Improved sights, Smart weapons, Cover, Movement, Target reactions, Environmental effects, Range, Target stance.

There are also rules on Battlefield sensors, Communications, Explosions, Firing into combat, Grappling, Initiative, Tactics, Leadership, Thrown weapons, Auto-fire and more.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

As a postscript to Rust's post, while planning a tactical fighting area is a lot of planning, giving the players differently equipped/armed opponents would necessitate different tactics in order to defeat them, and requires less (or at least, reusable) prep.

One group could have long range firepower (ARMP?), meaning the use of stealth and cover in order to get close.

One group could use lots of automatic fire and fixed positions, meaning grenades or artillery would be most effective.

Another could use lasers and lots of EW; players equipped with aerosols and jammers would have an advantage.

There could be a group that uses human (alien) wave attacks, another that has heavily armoured 'monsters' closing for devastating hand to hand. Both need a different response from the players.

Opponents using flamers or cryo weapons would also have to be treated differently.

I'm in the process right now of developing a set of 'stock' merc groups that have differing squad make-ups, weapons and armour, and tech levels, so I have a pool of distinct opponents I can dip into at the drop of a hat, inspired by the 3 merc groups in ME2, that despite having very similar components, require different tactics to better defeat.

The use of the Tactics and Recon skills could also be expanded, boosting character over player knowledge. For instance, link a Recon task with a Tactics task. A good recon result gives the unit leader a good understanding of the armaments of the opponents, giving a bonus to the tactics roll; then use the Effect of the tactics roll as the number of factoids the leader knows.

Eg:, facing the above laser/EW mercs, a Tactics Effect of 2 lets the leader in the fact that aerosols would diminish the effectiveness of the lasers, and also that their EW capabiity could mess up your own targeting/tactical sensors. Or some such, I'm just rambling now.

 

[rust]

The use of the Tactics and Recon skills could also be expanded, boosting character over player knowledge. For instance, link a Recon task with a Tactics task.

A good point, especially because a plausible opponent will also use his tac-
tical knowledge to gain an advantage, and the combination of Recon and
Tactics can be used to give the characters an idea what to look for (e.g.
when the characters walk into an ambush and there is obvious cover, this
probably is where the mines are hidden ...).

 

[dreamingbadger]

Well it isn't strategic... and focuses on small numbers of men/machines and equipment... you could ask the question do the existing rules support tactical behaviour, fire and manoeuvre, etc...

I think they provide a framework in which they can, with a savvy group of players and GM.

 

[apoc527]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm just trying to figure out what level of "tactics" the game system allows when compared to other mainstream RPGs like D&D, GURPS, etc. RuneQuest II seems fairly "tactical" insofar as the game system allows for more than just an exchange of blows (with the Combat Maneuver system). Even D&D 4E has "tactics" specific to the rules (what power do I use and when?).

MGT seems like it allows a fair degree of freedom during combat given the generally minimalist design philosophy of Traveller. At any rate, I guess I'll find out for myself soon enough.

The biggest question is this: if an appropriately equipped group of PCs can defeat a larger number of less-skilled or poorly equipped enemies, then the game probably has some level of tactics. If not, well, that means that its an exchange of blows, Final Fantasy style system where the largest number of HP will win.

 

[apoc527]

I'm in the process right now of developing a set of 'stock' merc groups that have differing squad make-ups, weapons and armour, and tech levels, so I have a pool of distinct opponents I can dip into at the drop of a hat, inspired by the 3 merc groups in ME2, that despite having very similar components, require different tactics to better defeat.

oooh. I'd be interested in seeing this!

 

[Sturn]

I have a house rule on the Tactics skill that others may find useful. It may be too much for some. It is un-tested. It was developed for a highly house-ruled version of MGT Combat that reverts in some parts to the original beta version. But, I think it still fits in with the released version of MGT.

I applied italics to a part below that may need adjusted to the MGT Combat system as released.

Tactics and Initiative

Characters who have the Tactics skill may be able to make a Tactics check similar to a task chain (see MGT Core Skills and Tasks: page 51) that will affect the Initiative of everyone in their group. Use the DM given as if the task was part of a chain: a +0 Effect results in no change to Initiative, +1 to +5 Effect gives a +1 to Initiative, +6 Effect or more gives a +2 to Initiative. However, any failure gives a -1 Initiative, no matter how bad the negative Effect. This adjustment to Initiative is applied during the Set Initiative portion of the Major Action Phase. Note that the effect can not raise Initiative above 6 or below 1, as usual. The effect of a Tactics check will also be applied to beginning Initiative if done so before the battle began, which is the usual case.

The check may only be made if the character had time to communicate with his group, planning the tactics of the upcoming engagement. A group that is surprised by a battle, would not have time to make tactical plans and so can not make a Tactics roll. Only one character can roll the Tactics check for his group. Note that the result could be negative, adversely affecting the Initiative of those being led. Before the Tactics roll is made, a person in the group may choose to disregard the Effect of the Tactics roll, in anticipation of the leader making a poor roll. If the result turns out to be a positive one, he cannot change his mind. Record the result of the Tactics check which will remain in place for all that 'listened' to the tactician, until and if another Tactics check is made. A Tactics check could conceivably be made during the battle, but would be difficult and very rare – the tactician would need time and an ability to communicate with the group members he is attempting to direct.

Develop and issue a tactical plan: Intelligence. Time varies by DM. 1 hour = +2 DM, 10 minutes = +1 DM, 1 minute = +0 DM, 1 second = -2 DM (but can perform as an action, shouting out a quick plan).

Optional: Role-Playing Tactical Plans

A Tactics bonus to Initiative represents the benefit of following a set plan. Characters can act quicker if they already have a set course in their mind. A plan could be, “Sturn and Morn lay down fire on the guards on the hill while the rest of us flank right and attack them from behind”. Once the plan is completed or no longer feasible for a character he loses the benefits of the Initiative bonus. As in, the characters flank and take the hill, but then more guards approach in an air/raft. The response to this new threat wasn't planned. Someone could then take the time to make another Tactics check while telling the other characters how to respond, to possibly gain a new Initiative benefit.

A single character's actions could also make him lose his own benefit to the plan while the rest of his group keeps it. If Sturn stops firing at the guards on the hill and instead runs back to the ship to grab a rocket launcher, he would no longer gain the Initiative bonus. If he returns in time and the plan is still feasible, he could regain his Initiative bonus.

A referee can, in this way, require a character making the Tactics roll to actually make up a brief plan. If the player takes too long talking, it could make the time of the task extend. If the referee thinks the plan is particularly good or bad, he can even apply a DM to the Tactics roll.

Note: In my house-rules, the Leadership skill affects Morale which puts a limit on the amount of Initiative regained each round (a throw-back to the beta version of MGT Combat iirc).

 

[CosmicGamer]

The biggest question is this: if an appropriately equipped group of PCs can defeat a larger number of less-skilled or poorly equipped enemies, then the game probably has some level of tactics. If not, well, that means that its an exchange of blows, Final Fantasy style system where the largest number of HP will win.

This made me think. Is it possible or not. Unfortunately, in my opinion, how good or poorly the dice roll is will have more influence on the outcome than tactics the character/player may use.

Perhaps that should be a measure of a games tactics - how much they influences the outcome of combat?

 

[apoc527]

Now you've made me think of something. If the players come up with a good plan and the plan is still dependent on dice rolls (it usually is, after all, and I would never advocate getting rid of the dice in combat situations), then how about this for an optional rule:

Tactics can also be used to grant a DM to all relevant skill checks made by members of the "squad" (any group with a leader(s)). At the start of the combat and at each tactically discrete point (determined by changing circumstances), the leader of the group may make a Tactics check taking 1 combat round. All characters in communication with the leader gain a bonus on all relevant skill checks as per Task Chain rules. So with Effect 6+, a tactician could give +2 DM to all plan-related skill checks.

I envision this being useful when setting up fields of fire (say to destroy a group of low TL warriors charging across an open field). The DM can help offset the dice and help ensure that a better plan and not purely luck carry the day.

 

[BP]

Just some thoughts... IMHO the rules seem well written to support Player 'tactics'.

Tactics skill is already accounted for in terms of the initial initiative - besides, adding more advantages (and unneeded complication) works both ways and could counteract Player's actual tactics...

Good planning can be the key to success - but its really only about improving the odds. There are no guarantees, so even the best planning occassionally ends up in failure. Improving the odds is great - and the Ref should likewise do so when appropriate (i.e. - like using difficulty DMs). The Players need to make the good planning - like taking advantage of their PCs skill strengths, equipment and position.

In the example above, 'setting up fields of fire' - this is based on PC skill - not likely a Player tactic. PCs that have no training should not have this tactical advantage if their Players are roleplaying them well. Bear in mind, other parts of combat already support this - i.e. the charging low TL warriors have no cover DMs available (a tactical mistake to be sure). Tactics in this situation would involve the PCs remaining covered and perhaps taking extended aim... they could also apply other skills - like deception and persuade to convince the attackers that they are under attack from behind (the rules provide a skill check - but the Ref has to supply the outcome - like lowering initiative, and negative DMs, etc.).

Tactics from a Player standpoint boils down to roleplay about how and when they fight - who stands up to take the focus away while another prepares explosive, makes comm calls, or delays till opponents have used up their initiative! These types of tactics determine who wears the dress and who stays hidden in the back...

Its not the rules, so much as the Referee, that determines how effective tactics are in roleplay. MGT task and skill check system along with the combat systems seem to offer the Ref plenty of opportunity to accommodate Player tactics.

 

[apoc527]

Agreed, actually, now that I look at the rules again more closely. Having a higher Initiative is REALLY good in this system, since it means that you not only get to go before most other opponents, but reactions and automatic fire also affect you less in the overall scheme of combat. If I have Initiative 16, and the bad guys have Initiative 8, I can do a lot of stuff before they actually go before me in a given round. Pretty big bonus...

 

[ColHut]

I think the personal combat rules are definitely set at the tactical level, but I do not think there is any real place (unless you really want it) for infantry minor tactics. This is a RPG after all, and characters are played often by persons with no relevant experience or skill. The task and skill system is used to resolve this. Unless it really is your players' thing then I'd keep it down to short simple engagements which do not rely on anything but a working knowledge of the rules rather than on knowledge of current/historical tactics. In any case at the current time section(squad) level, minor tactics are mostly about executing a set of pre-learned drills on interpreting a situation.


regards

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Use videogames as shorthand for tactical situations, as in, most players will also probably play Xbox or whathaveyou, and lots of games require tactical decisions in combat, especially the squad based shooters.

Multiplayer probably won't help, as the best tactic still seems to be running backwards in a circle...

 

[kristof65]

I think it's quite tactical myself.

When I started up my first MGT campaign after a long hiatus from Traveller, the very first thing we did after rolling up the player's PCs was to hold a mock combat session to familiarize ourselves with the way combat worked.

I sketched out a quick layout of a starship landing bay with a starship in it, some doors/access points, and a bunch of cargo around. I told the players the quick scenario was that their PCs were running back to their ship trying to get away before local military stopped them - you know, the classic Star Wars scene where everyone's hot-footing it back to the Millennium Falcon before the stormtroopers catch them.

Despite the group & I's complete unfamiliarity with the combat system, I'm really surprised at how quickly the combat became tactical, and how different skills played into the combat. One of the four PCs got shot in the first couple of rounds, and "died" from the damage - but the immediate effect of that was for all the players to say "Oh crap, combat is deadly and we better fight smarter", which lead to a different way of them approaching combat. Some examples of things that happened:

- one of the PCs used his skills to lock out some of the doors, thus limiting for a time the avenues the army guys could use to get at them.

- players found themselves making the snap decision each round on whether it was more important to snap off a few covering shots, or actually aim for a hit/kill.

- another PC used her skills to hot wire and manuever an air raft to provide a platform for covering fire - at least until she was shot down!

All in all, a group of players used to D&D 3.5e immediately adopted a different approach to their combat thinking upon realizing how deadly combat was. During the actual campaign (now sadly over), they avoided combat whenever possible, and maximized their tactical options whenever they used force/combat.

My advice is to do something similar - hold a no-consequences combat session or two before playing to familiarize the GM and players with the combat system AND reinforce that it is deadly. Especially if they're used to D&D. Once the players realize how deadly Traveller combat can be, they'll generally take a more cautious - and thus tactical approach to combat.

 

[nats]

Traveller has always had deadly combat. Always make sure you have better equipment than the other people.

I think tactics has always been a fun part of Traveller. But its something a good referee with engender. Problem with Mongoose is they lately have been trying to proscribe every rule variation and ignoring the fact thay have actually quite a good task system in their core book. Ruins the tactical play as you spend too much time checking rules and not enough time playing the game.