[[[Playtest Focus]]] Locking High Guard

[Nerhesi]

This to counter-act the close-dogfighting, it's not the aid the strafing runs though...

I was very close to saying sure lets just "remove the penalty" Phavoc but then the unintended consequence is that this would stack WITH other fire-control. So then suddenly you can actually have a bonus against the dog-fighters if you combine this and fire control.

Sticking to making it a bonus, that is just as big as the penalty at best (-6), covers us under the "software bonuses dont stack" rules.

I dont mind if it is just one TL12 level rating 30 software though, thats fine - doesn't have to be better by TL level (although most things are in the current paradigm)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This would allow ships to hit in dogfight on a roll of 6 or 7 so more than 50%, after losing a few shot to dodging. Might be too good, I have to fight a few fights...

This is basically determined by how many times you can dodge in close combat...

 

[phavoc]

This to counter-act the close-dogfighting, it's not the aid the strafing runs though...

I was very close to saying sure lets just "remove the penalty" Phavoc but then the unintended consequence is that this would stack WITH other fire-control. So then suddenly you can actually have a bonus against the dog-fighters if you combine this and fire control.

Sticking to making it a bonus, that is just as big as the penalty at best (-6), covers us under the "software bonuses dont stack" rules.

I dont mind if it is just one TL12 level rating 30 software though, thats fine - doesn't have to be better by TL level (although most things are in the current paradigm)

I was specifically talking about small craft in the vicinity of a starship. As I was reading the rules, all craft in that arena switch to 'dogfight' rules with turns of 6 seconds length. The rapidity of the turns, to me, doesn't make sense because you really bump up the ROF for weapons. And that begs the question, does increasing the ROF also increase the power consumption for that weapon? If it takes 1 power to fire it for 1 round, wouldn't you also naturally pay 10x the power when your timeframe gets smaller? And how do you handle the rest of the combat? What if the ship was fighting both small craft and another starship at say short range? Should you do 10 rounds of knife-fighting, then 1 regular round, then back to knife-fighting for another 10 rounds?

 

[Nerhesi]

This to counter-act the close-dogfighting, it's not the aid the strafing runs though...

I was very close to saying sure lets just "remove the penalty" Phavoc but then the unintended consequence is that this would stack WITH other fire-control. So then suddenly you can actually have a bonus against the dog-fighters if you combine this and fire control.

Sticking to making it a bonus, that is just as big as the penalty at best (-6), covers us under the "software bonuses dont stack" rules.

I dont mind if it is just one TL12 level rating 30 software though, thats fine - doesn't have to be better by TL level (although most things are in the current paradigm)

I was specifically talking about small craft in the vicinity of a starship. As I was reading the rules, all craft in that arena switch to 'dogfight' rules with turns of 6 seconds length. The rapidity of the turns, to me, doesn't make sense because you really bump up the ROF for weapons. And that begs the question, does increasing the ROF also increase the power consumption for that weapon? If it takes 1 power to fire it for 1 round, wouldn't you also naturally pay 10x the power when your timeframe gets smaller? And how do you handle the rest of the combat? What if the ship was fighting both small craft and another starship at say short range? Should you do 10 rounds of knife-fighting, then 1 regular round, then back to knife-fighting for another 10 rounds?

So personally, I'm not a fan of the change in time-scale for rounds - but I've had to move past that.

What we have now, is an abstraction that is basically "60 rounds happen in the space of 1 normal one" - this means 60 normal rounds to me, but you're not really changing range-bands or so. They're 60 rounds in that enclosed tiny space. This means, each round you have the same thrust, power, etc etc etc... does it make sense logically that you're burning possibly 60 times more thrust and fuel? no - but then that is why it is an abstraction. Trying to do any other fractional accounting would be beyond ridiculous... and would really defeat the purpose of having "60 rounds in 1".

Hopefully the Traveller Companion will identify an option to simply make Dogfighting as the same time-scale. Perhaps I just didnt fight hard enough for this one - but we should work with what we have here.

 

[phavoc]

I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't mean we shouldnt still stridently call out silly rules. If they appear to be stuck with what's going to be published then that's what will happen.

But I'd rather continue to make noise about them in the hopes that common sense will prevail.

 

[Nerhesi]

I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't mean we shouldnt still stridently call out silly rules. If they appear to be stuck with what's going to be published then that's what will happen.

But I'd rather continue to make noise about them in the hopes that common sense will prevail.

I've been informed there are no more changes to core :| So we do have to make the best we can in the upcoming fighters section in high guard with respect to clarification and such.

 

[arcador]

The close combat software looks like a "patch" (generally not a good idea in game design), but it might do the trick.

Another thing that might do the trick, is - and even without modifying the core book in any way - to limit the armor a spaceship can stack depending on it's hull. I mean, for an armor to be effective, it has to at least have some sort of absolute thickness. By placing this limit, it will allow for normal turrets to be able to penetrate the ~15 armor. It will also keep the current, and perhaps normal, dogfighter advantage without keeping the high-armor abuse.

(I think someone else already suggested that)

 

[Nerhesi]

Thats taken care of by the low hull values.. armour thickness is actually uniform based (since it is space based) - so the armour of a battleship isn't any thicker than a fighter. It's just once the hull starts the buckle.. the fighter becomes smoke very very quickly.

But yes, it is a "patch" - unless we want to wait for errata then we can simply state that the -6 DM penalty only applies to 1000+ ton ships.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Close Combat Fire Control (available for non-small craft ONLY)
TL10, Rating 20, MCr 5, +2 to hit all targets within close/adjacent range with available direct fire turrets (and barbettes or not?)
TL12, Rating 30, MCr 10, +4 as above
TL14, Rating 40, MCr 20, +6 as above

Or just make one TL12 version with the +6, depending on how Matt wants to go with this. We would want to make sure the rating is high enough in that going after fighters swarming you becomes a focused task not an afterthought, and considering that the fighters will still have an advantage, we may want it to apply to barbettes so it is of some use vs high-end fighters (otherwise, turrets barely hitting wont do any damage either).

Thoughts?

This depends on dodging. With 25 dodges / 6s as suggested in another thread the ships will still lose badly against equal cost of fighters (w carriers). Without ANY dodging they are about even, if I have calculated damage correctly.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Drop Tanks:
They are fragile, they should probably vaporise the first time a ship is hit in combat. As is there is no way to damage them.

Dropping them before jump, or just using them semi-permanently attached as cheap fuel tanks are both possible. The rules should consider both, e.g. the malus to the Engineering check it the same for both cases, should it be?

 

[wbnc]

Drop Tanks:
They are fragile, they should probably vaporise the first time a ship is hit in combat. As is there is not what to damage them.

Dropping them before jump, or just using them semi-permanently attached as cheap fuel tanks are both possible. The rules should consider both, e.g. the malus to the Engineering check it the same for both cases, should it be?

I wouldn't call them cheap, they are pricey, and impose some nasty penalties when you have to carry a lot of fuel around...at TL-14 they only impose a -1 on jump, although I'd also see it plausible that they impose the same penalty on initiative, and piloting checks....after all you have a big metal box full of liquid hydrogen strapped to you hull..that's gonna play hell with handling. and if you add drive power to compensate for semi-permanent tanks it gets expensive quick...I did the math more than once for a few designs.

a 400 ton ship carrying enough fuel for a J-3 jump through a jump is carrying an extra 120 tons....which means it is effectively a 520 ton ship for thrust and jump calculations.

to determine if a tank takes hit...
a percentage chance of a tank taking a hit when a ship is struck would work nicely. If a 400 ton ship is carrying a 200 ton tank...the odds of it getting hit instead of the ships main hull is 50/50

now a 1000 ton ship carrying 200 ton tanks around 20% of the time the tanks will take a hit.

And as for how much damage can a drop tank take before becoming confetti and boiling gas...
Drop tanks are bought at the same cost as a non gravity starship hull so they would have the same hull points as a ship that size....just no armor, or reinforcement possible which means they get shot up pretty quickly...and any critical they take is going to be a fuel hit..

.of course taking tanks into combat is a bad idea..you loose thrust and thrust is one of those things you don't want to be short of in combat...unless you are hopelessly out matched in thrust to begin with and then you use the tanks to soak up incoming fire. if you have to drop your tanks you can always come back for them if yo win the fight...a few hours work, some engineering expertise/spare part, and you reattach the tanks and go on your merry way.

if you have to run it's a lost tank is a small price to pay for getting the heck out of Dodge in one piece.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think that's we want to aim for though, ships losing badly to fighters (without any fighters on their own).

Fighters shouldn be immune, but you shouldn have a 50/50 chance to hit the dog-fighting fighter as a large ship, perhaps 20% or even less. Close-combat software shouldn't be an effective answer, but more of of little breathing space.

 

[phavoc]

I understand where you are coming from, but that doesn't mean we shouldnt still stridently call out silly rules. If they appear to be stuck with what's going to be published then that's what will happen.

But I'd rather continue to make noise about them in the hopes that common sense will prevail.

I've been informed there are no more changes to core :| So we do have to make the best we can in the upcoming fighters section in high guard with respect to clarification and such.

Meh. I will still call out things that appear broken, stupid, or ill thought out. I don't care if the rules are "locked" or not. If you see a pile of crap, you don't say it smells like roses. Only by bringing things up will there be any chance it gets changed.

 

[wbnc]

I think that's we want to aim for though, ships losing badly to fighters (without any fighters on their own).

Fighters shouldn be immune, but you shouldn have a 50/50 chance to hit the dog-fighting fighter as a large ship, perhaps 20% or even less. Close-combat software shouldn't be an effective answer, but more of of little breathing space.

I agree with that, software might take care for the timing issues created by firing weapons at such close ranges. But the physical limitations of a massive ship vs a smaller fighter will still exist. Inside of a certain range your own hull will start getting in the way Weapons designed to hit targets at thousands, or tens of thousands of kilometers may not be well suited to hitting targets at tens of kilometers.. Cutting the penalties for close combat in half would be overly generous for the best software available.

 

[phavoc]

I think that's we want to aim for though, ships losing badly to fighters (without any fighters on their own).

Fighters shouldn be immune, but you shouldn have a 50/50 chance to hit the dog-fighting fighter as a large ship, perhaps 20% or even less. Close-combat software shouldn't be an effective answer, but more of of little breathing space.

I agree with that, software might take care for the timing issues created by firing weapons at such close ranges. But the physical limitations of a massive ship vs a smaller fighter will still exist. Inside of a certain range your own hull will start getting in the way Weapons designed to hit targets at thousands, or tens of thousands of kilometers may not be well suited to hitting targets at tens of kilometers.. Cutting the penalties for close combat in half would be overly generous for the best software available.

Meh, don't go down that path.... it leads to bad game design. If anything, computer controlled cannons and such would be mighty dangerous, probably far more than a human gunner. And it also leads to the problems with newtonian movement in a 'dogfight'.

A starship would have multiple turrets spread out around it's hull, with the very idea to NOT create blind-spots that fighters could take advantage of. Not to say that some designs would fail at that idea... but since the rules don't take any sort of weapon firing arcs for starships into account, you can put a kibbosh on that logic. You may only have one single turret, but it can shoot at any target within range.

Watching some Babylon 5 fighter combat scene's show's you somewhat how space fighters should be maneuvering around and attacking targets. But they don't show you, after the cool pass or the fighter spinning around 180 degree's to blow up their pursuer, the time it takes to STOP their momentum, and then re-accelerate back to the battle to make another firing pass The game rules are postulating more of a Star Wars-style dogfight scenario, with mythical etheric rudders that allows space fighters to act like atmospheric fighters.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yeah - I remember this conversation from some months ago when someone was discussing blindspots.

With proper newtonian dogfights - it turns into this reverse or angular thrust "turretting". Which has its own challenges for a space-sim game (see star citizen) - but thankfully can be abstracted for the tabletop rpg

 

[phavoc]

This has been a perennial problem with Traveller since it's inception. It's sorta-sciency RPG, but don't look under the hood or you'll drive yourself batsh*t crazy with all the contradictions.

Star Wars and Star Trek avoid the idea with even more magical tech. Pure newtonian movement IS a real bitch to play with. And not terribly fun I might add. Oh, maybe with single ship to ship combat. Beyond that... ugh. Too much a pain in the ass to me.

At times like that the designers really should put in some verbiage that discusses how 'dogfight' rules are not quite within the same guidelines as other rules, and since they are trying to add flavor to the game, all is forgiven. I think sometimes designers strive TOO hard to get the same feeling of aerial and nautical battles... in SPAACCEEE! And the ideas don't translate well when they ALSO try to say "we're science-based!". Sure, as long as you throw out the book on science you are. Just don't cloak yourself in science AND talk about your primo RPG game system with equivalance.

2300AD, for example, sidesteps certain rules of physics by postulating stutter-warp. But it more or less embraces the rest. Traveller has jump drives to move in and out of our universe for travel, but starts to depart by citing newtonian-based ship movement, then adds in afterburners, but no method to remove MASS (anti-grav is weight, and relies on a grav field). I like it when game systems at least try to stay within their own boundaries. After the debacle of T5 I had more or less given up on them actually getting back closer to the original Traveller system while also expanding it. I think it's still a mixed bag at this point.

 

[Nerhesi]

I do like the idea of stutter or skip-drive. It returns "skill" to the arena of near-light speed weapons and super-accurate weaponry (argument: for weaponry to be accurate at space ranges, it needs to be perfectly so, therefore skill on both the gunner and dodger have no relevance - "skip/stutter" technology can side-step this conundrum)

This is why Phavoc, and I think we agree on this, the "hardness" of a scifi rpg to me is determined by it's internal consistency, not it's realism to today's technology/physical models (in my opinion). As you said earlier - establish some handwavium baselines (as most far future sci fi games must), but then stick to that and keep that in mind in all times when designing in your universe.

Example: If you have FTL communication for example, how come you dont have FTL weaponry? etc etc - I think this is something traveller has tried to stick to - internal consistency. But anyways, we're floating off topic for this thread

 

[phavoc]

Agreed. Once you set the parameters of your universe don't willy nilly weave through them because something sounds cool or you really want to introduce X. It's okay to do so IF the explanation follows the same rules somehow.

In Traveller we have Grandfather and Ancient tech that allows you to do the handwave craziness. Or you have Zho psionics to do some weird stuff. But those are established design rules. Things lie the rule you retain your velocity out of jump space means you've been accelerating to the 100 limit. And then magically at the next system you lose hours of built up acceleration if a pirate is the encounter? Consistency says you should arrive in a system at zero velocity IF you want that en counter rule to make sense. Departure could be zero, or not, and you could add in rules about it, or not.

 

[Chas]

Hope Matt gives us say 48 hours to kick stuff around with him if he's jumping on line to lock up :!: