Multiple Ship Combat

[Supplement Four]

Yes, it is that inaccurate.

No, it's not. You're just not reading the graph correctly.

Remember, the graph just represents distance, and distance only. It does not represent direction.

Direction in CT space combat is meaningless. It's the same throw to fire at a target that is 50,000 km off the bow of the player's ship as it is a target off the aft.

Like a Range Band ladder, all the graph is representing is distance. Direction, position, are not represented.

All you need to know is, "How far is it to the target."

The graph I suggested will work brilliantly for that.





I assume that there are no direction modifiers in MGT space combt either. Correct?

All turrets on adventure class ships can be brought to bear on a target, correct? There is no "facing"?

If that is correct in MGT, then the graph I suggested is perfect and very accurate.

If one wants, one can play with the number of spokes and circles to increase or decrease range. Just keep the number of each the same.

If ship 1 is 10 "squares" directly ahead of the players ship, and ships 2 & 3 are 10 "squares" clockwise and counter clockwise from ship 1 the same distance out, where are ships 2 & 3?

Each ship is 100,000 km distant from the players' ship.

Ship 2 and Ship 3 are 100,000 km from Ship 1.

Ship 2 is 200,000 km from Ship 3.

All you need to know (Range) for space combat.

Looking at polar graph plotting tells you the three ships are equally spaced and equidistant from the player's ship - one in front at 0 degrees, and two to the rear, towards either side at approximately 120 and 240 degrees respectively.

The reality is that since those ships are actually only 100,000 km apart from each other, they are actually all to the front, at 0, roughly 60 and roughl 300 degrees, because at that distance away from the ship, the band has a diameter of 628,000 km. That could (and should) make a big difference to the player's tactics.

See...you're trying to position the ships as well. That's not needed. And, it doesn't really make a difference for space combat. That's why the Range Band ladder works (provides only range, too, not acutal position).

As I said above, you're mis-reading the graph.

It's very accurate for what its meant to do...and that is to give range for space combat.

 

[kristof65]

Even leaving position aside, it's not accurate.

Try the following. Print out four of your polar grids, and four hex grids.

Place your player's ship in the center of the polar grid. Place Ship one 50,000km directly "ahead" of the player's ship. Now place ships 2 & 3 exactly 50,000 km away from ship 1 and the player's ship, but on opposite "sides". How far apart are ships 2 & 3?

Now do the same on the hex grid? Again, how far apart are ships 2 & 3?

Now try the same exercise, only place all the ships 100,000km, 170,000km and 200,000km apart on your remaining grids. Measure how far apart ships 2 & 3 are for each one.

You'll note that the distance between ships two and three retain the same ratio apart from each other when compared to their distance from the player's ship when mapped onto the hex paper. You'll see that when mapped onto the polar grid, the ratio changes drastically depending on their range from the player's ship.

If ships 2 & 3 are supposed to be shooting at each other as well as the player's ship/ship 1, then it makes a HUGE difference.

If you have a single player ship, fighting a single group of enemies, the polar graph will work as an abstract, mostly because the ranging problems between the other ships won't be noticed. That's not what the OP was asking about, though.

 

[kristof65]

Each ship is 100,000 km distant from the players' ship.

Ship 2 and Ship 3 are 100,000 km from Ship 1.

Ship 2 is 200,000 km from Ship 3.

Wrong. Ship 2 and Ship 3 are only 10 segments away from each other in this scenario, making them only 100,000 km from each other. Bump the ranges up to 110,000 km, and ships 2 & 3 are only 80,000 km from each other.

Unless you are saying to never count segments across a certain line of the graph?

 

[Supplement Four]

Even leaving position aside, it's not accurate.

Good grief. You're not "getting it".

Forget hex grids. Hex grids show position.

What I want you to do is focus on a Range Band ladder used in Traveller. It's used in CT Gun Combat scenarios, and it's used in Starter Traveller.

This graph I have suggested is the SAME THING. It's accurate. It's very accurate. It's extremely accurate.

It's only showing Range.

Now do the same on the hex grid? Again, how far apart are ships 2 & 3?

You're still trying to make it report position. When you compare to a hex grid, you're looking for position.

All this tool is does is report range.

And, like I said, it's all you need for space combat. You only need to know how far it is to a target. Position does not matter.

The GM keep track of general positioning, just like he does on a Range Band ladder.

 

[Supplement Four]

Each ship is 100,000 km distant from the players' ship.

Ship 2 and Ship 3 are 100,000 km from Ship 1.

Ship 2 is 200,000 km from Ship 3.

Wrong. Ship 2 and Ship 3 are only 10 segments away from each other in this scenario, making them only 100,000 km from each other. Bump the ranges up to 110,000 km, and ships 2 & 3 are only 80,000 km from each other.

Unless you are saying to never count segments across a certain line of the graph?

What you wrote was: Ship 1 is 10 segments from the center (player's ship). All ships are in the same circle segment, so they're all 100,000 km from the player's ship.

Move 10 segs clockwise in the smae segment for Ship 2. That puts it 100,000 km from Ship 1 and 100,000 km from the player's ship (same circle).

Move 10 segs counter clockwise in the same segment from Ship 1, opposite direction of Ship 2, for Ship 3. This puts Ship 3 100,000 km from Ship 1; 200,000 km from Ship 2; and 100,000 km to the player's ship.

Just like I said.

 

[kristof65]

I am getting it - I've graphed it out, I've looked at it from several different angles.

You would be right, except for the fact that the polar grid is circular, and ship's 2 & 3 are only 10 segments from each other - ship 2 is 10 segments CW from ship 1. Now go 10 segments from ship 1 to place ship 3. Now count the number of segments both clockwise and counterclockwise from ship 3. How many segments away is Ship 2?

Forget doing it at 100,000 km - try it at a different number like 120,000 km, or 170,000 km - the numbers distort things even more - you'll see what I mean.

This is fine, if the GM is in control of all the other ships, and the player's only have one ship - they'll never see the "problem". You might even get away with it if the player's have two or more ships, and no ships move in relation to each other. But once the player's have two ships and any of the ships move to close or open the range between them, you end up with "impossible" situations. Not always, but often enough it creates issues.

 

[GypsyComet]

Gentlemen, I don't think the "thousand words" thing is working. Someone is going to have to resort to pictures...

 

[kristof65]

I've done the pictures, I just have no easy way of uploading them right now.

 

[Supplement Four]

You would be right, except for the fact that the polar grid is circular, and ship's 2 & 3 are only 10 segments from each other - ship 2 is 10 segments CW from ship 1

I see where you're mis-calculating now.

You're counting the segments between Ship 2 and Ship 3 without going through the segment holding Ship 1.

You can't do that. You've got to use some common sense. (I'm not trying to be snarky here--it does really does require some common sense...).

Space is vast. It's much more vast than the distance represented by the circumfrence of your grid. So, just like using the player's ship as a measuring point, you've got to have a measuring point between vessels out on the grid too.

I thought you understood this, especially in the way you designed your example.

Your measure point out on the grid is Ship 1. You can measure clockwise or counter clockwise from it. But, you always start there.

What you've been doing is shortchanging the distance by not using a starting point out on the grid.

Range Bands need a point to measure from. You need one measuring point per dimension measured.

On a Range Band ladder, it's the bottom of the page. Enemy ships move up and down the ladder.

On a circular gird like this, it's the center of the graph (the player's ship), and another point, for the second dimension (around the graph instead of across it), that is chosen.

The GM can arbirtrarily select a segment to be the measure point out on the graph (for 3+ vessels), or he can select a ship.

I suggest using a ship.



That should clear up the confusion.

Make sense to you now?

(Oh, and I just arbitraily picked 30 spokes and 30 circles. Use whatever number suits the range at which your combat will take place. The grid will still work as I have stated (and it will be accurate).)

 

[kristof65]

You can't do that. You've got to use some common sense. (I'm not trying to be snarky here--it does really does require some common sense...).

I'm sorry, I find that to be snarky. It's not common sense because it's not an obvious use of the grid. The entire conversation probably wouldn't have happened if you had stated it up front.

Using it like that (and I wondered if you were using in some sort of different fashion - look at my previous post where I ask if you're doing something different) looks to be workable at first glance. I do see some concerns for running 5-6 or more ships - one could lose track of the reference points. I also see an issue if the combat's ranges take an uexpected turn beyond the ranges you've specified on the grid - IE, for the grid you've set, any range of a secondary ship (ships 2 & 3) beyond 150,000 km means they "roll over" and could cause confusion.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I happen to like the solution I proposed - the OP can pick mine, your's or someone else's.

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm sorry, I find that to be snarky.

I told you in the beginning of the post that it wasn't meant to be snarky. I can't help how you read it, but you could have taken my word for it. I meant what I said.

It's not common sense because it's not an obvious use of the grid.

Actually, it is common sense.

I mean, how many boxes are counted around the entire grid? 30. At 10K each, that's a spread of 300,000 km.

You sounded like you were proficient with graphs, and your example made me think you knew what you were talking about.

Had I thought you didn't understand that, I would have certainly stated what I thought was obvious.

Anyway, if you followed my examples above, you would have seen that I always went through Ship 1.

The entire conversation probably wouldn't have happened if you had stated it up front.

Kinda sounds like sour grapes because you didn't understand the graph.

Using it like that (and I wondered if you were using in some sort of different fashion - look at my previous post where I ask if you're doing something different) looks to be workable at first glance. I do see some concerns for running 5-6 or more ships - one could lose track of the reference points.

With that many ships in the conflict, I'd probably use CT Book 2 combat without Range Bands, or I'd use CT High Guard combat (more than likely, I'd use Book 2).

The graph and Range Bands is a tool for a specific purpose. It's not one-size-fits-all, just like it would be hard to run a ground combat with multiple combatants at multile ranges using the Range Band ladder.

I also see an issue if the combat's ranges take an uexpected turn beyond the ranges you've specified on the grid - IE, for the grid you've set, any range of a secondary ship (ships 2 & 3) beyond 150,000 km means they "roll over" and could cause confusion.

The GM needs to create the graph that can contain the fight. If you need more than 30 circles, then use them.

Maybe make a couple of graphs: 60, 50, 40, 30. In case the fight goes on for a loonnnng time over a great distance.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I happen to like the solution I proposed - the OP can pick mine, your's or someone else's.

Well, make yourself happy, I always say. Nobody else is going to do it for you. :wink: