If you could change space combat, how would you do it?

[JRoss]

So I'm working on a project. I want to know what you, reader, would change about the way space combat works in MgT if you had the opportunity to do so? I'm interested in the following: What do you like/dislike from High Guard? What functionality would you like to see given to the different crew positions (Captain, Pilot, Gunner, etc.)? Anything you want to see added? Removed?

 

[sideranautae]

I changed weapon ranges. Boarding is impossible if a ship has a functioning M-drive and is using it to "resist". Since my players don't have capital ships I don't use HG. I have updated sensors from TL 4-6 ranges to better reflect the "Far Future".

Not a lot else. Pretty good system overall.

 

[Anonymous]

From a small to medium ship universe point of view I'd like a better explanation of in combat battle damage repairs. It seems a tad far fetched that damage wrought by ship weaponry should be so easily band aided in a Traveller OTU that doesn't embrace nanotechnology but even if it did it should be harder to repair a ship without a ship yard or similar facility.

I'd like to see rules that set out clearer definitions of small craft versus grav vehicles tho to be honest I think there is very little difference and the rules and design sequences should reflect this.

 

[sideranautae]

I'd like to see rules that set out clearer definitions of small craft versus grav vehicles tho to be honest I think there is very little difference and the rules and design sequences should reflect this.

I wish that the vehicle design system was similar to the ship design system. As it stands they are like to different games.

 

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see energy requirements from the different parts of a ship and the output from the power plant to them bring energy management into the game with appropriate tasks for whiley Scottish engineers to squeeze more from the drives and power plants. I think this would give clearer definitions between military and commercial ships, the latter of which would have an abundance of power.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with sid and would take it a step further and say ships and vehicles should be designed from the same sequence but it's kinda stepping off topic early on in this thread!

:mrgreen:

 

[Infojunky]

So I'm working on a project. I want to know what you, reader, would change about the way space combat works in MgT if you had the opportunity to do so?

Scale Change! In that Smallcraft are too powerful in the ground combat scale and too weak in the Starship combat scale. So I propose a Small Craft scale. High Guard is half way there.

 

[Infojunky]

I agree with sid and would take it a step further and say ships and vehicles should be designed from the same sequence but it's kinda stepping off topic early on in this thread!

:mrgreen:

Have you read the original Vehicles books? They are pretty much along those lines.

I for one like the later system and thing that maybe it should have included things like Smallcraft as well.

 

[sideranautae]

Have you read the original Vehicles books? They are pretty much along those lines.

Yes. But, they were SO bug ridden that they abandoned them. Don't you remember that?

 

[Infojunky]

Have you read the original Vehicles books? They are pretty much along those lines.

Yes. But, they were SO bug ridden that they abandoned them. Don't you remember that?

Bugs. BAH!, Thats a traveller tradition..... Mostly. Its a mater that design systems are very complex critters to write, with each layer of complexity added four more sets of unintended consequences wander in. Then you add in both the Authors and Players incomprehension of how the real world actually works then you have a royal mess. Nice simple approximating systems will give you more traction in the long term...

 

[sideranautae]

Mostly. Its a mater that design systems are very complex critters to write, with each layer of complexity added

No. It was just crap. That's why the publisher completely abandoned it.

 

[Infojunky]

Mostly. Its a matter that design systems are very complex critters to write, with each layer of complexity added

No. It was just crap. That's why the publisher completely abandoned it.

Well then we know what your opinion is then don't we....

I try to find where the problem is instead of just using generalities. I find that in offering criticism that consists statements like, "it's just Crap" to be off putting.

 

[JRoss]

You know, it states in the rules that any fix to a ship in combat breaks down immediately after the battle's over.

 

[Anonymous]

You know, it states in the rules that any fix to a ship in combat breaks down immediately after the battle's over.

Really? That's in the rules? I thought it was just Mark's game that had that knack of things not quite working right... tho maybe it's not so much in the rules but in the collective minds of every GM across the planet... the hive GM mind that can't help but sabotage every player plan...

 

[Jeraa]

You know, it states in the rules that any fix to a ship in combat breaks down immediately after the battle's over.

Really? That's in the rules? I thought it was just Mark's game that had that knack of things not quite working right... tho maybe it's not so much in the rules but in the collective minds of every GM across the planet... the hive GM mind that can't help but sabotage every player plan...

Page 150 in my core rulebook.

These are battlefield repairs only and will break down as soon as the battle is over unless repaired properly using the rules on page 143.

 

[sideranautae]

These are battlefield repairs only and will break down as soon as the battle is over unless repaired properly using the rules on page 143.

How do the repaired systems know when the battle is over? Will they stay repaired if you remain at battle stations? :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for posting the info.

My reference to the game Mark runs was more tongue in cheek. My earlier post still stands, if a whacking great laser just burnt through your ship's hull with enough power to damage your (insert starship component) then a quick fix doable in the space of a 10 minute round seems unlikely, star ships are complicated machines and I would argue, once you beat the armour, really quite fragile. A military ship would have redundant systems running parallel that would seamlessly engage to cover damage and commercial shipping wouldn't spend the money on redundant systems and would avoid the fight.

It'd be good to see HG cover IN protocol appropriate to most Traveller games: Naval ships don't travel alone when in hostile space. Small fleet composition, logistics and routes would be cool. I prefer a small ship (up to 10000 dTon) universe not the huge dreadnoughts that seem at home in space opera settings like Star Wars more than (my idea) of Traveller and it seems more likely to me that this would be the kind of unit that travellers in free traders would encounter.

Again tho, that's slightly OT as it's not combat per se.

Does it list in HG or the CRB the actual speeds ships engage at? I don't remember seeing that tho I understand the vector movement system is an alternate one to the abstraction the MgT uses. Incorporating speed into the combat would make it possible for a ship heading out to the 100D point to be travelling too fast to engage or perhaps even be engaged. I know most combat will occur at one end of such a trip when the ship about to jump needs to be stationary (relative to the system they're leaving or heading to? Wouldn't there be a velocity greater than zero relative to one if you're stationary relative to the other?)

 

[sideranautae]

Does it list in HG or the CRB the actual speeds ships engage at?

That would be meaningless. Only relative speed matters.

 

[golem64]

I would add armour degradation into the damage. The more hits you take, the less effective your armour is.

 

[Infojunky]

I would add armour degradation into the damage. The more hits you take, the less effective your armour is.

I believe that is number 7 on the damage allocation chart....