[[[Playtest Focus]]] Missiles III
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
ErinPalette
Mongoose
msprange said:
This replacement text does not contain p.160's rule about a double laser turret giving +1 to the roll and a triple giving +2. Without that rule, there is no advantage to having multiple point defense lasers in a single turret.
Was this intentional?
ErinPalette
Mongoose
Of course, all of this is predicated upon the assumption that the missiles are streaking towards a target which is stationary, or at least moving perpendicular to the missiles. They will strike sooner if the ships are moving towards each other, and will take that much longer to hit if they are pursuing a fleeing target.ErinPalette said:
Since both missiles and ships need to traverse the same amount of space, missiles must be tracked like ships or else they receive preferential treatment over ships. And if you want missiles to hit sooner, then just give them some ridiculous thrust package (like 20G).
Example: A system defense boat fires a missile barrage against a corsair at Very Long distance running away from them at 4G. Since the missile has 10G thrust, that means the missile is moving at a net 6G.
Turn 1: The missile goes from Adjacent, to Close, to Short, and halfway into Medium (2 of 5).
Turn 2: Missile finishes with Medium and gets a third of the way into Long (3 of 10).
Turn 3: The missile doesn't quite finish clearing Long range (9 of 10).
Turn 4: Missile finishes Long and begins chewing through Very Long. (5 of 25).
Turn 5: Missile works through more Very Long (14 of 25). At this point, it runs out of fuel per Matt Sprange's suggested endurance.
Assuming an Endurance of 10 instead...
Turn 6: Still working on Very Long. (20 of 25)
Turn 7: Missile finally closes to impact range.
Now let's try this with a Thrust of 20.
Turn 1: Missile launched. It powers through all the ranges from Adjacent to Long and burns 1 of the 25 needed for Very Long.
Turn 2: At 20G, the missile has burned 21 of 25 needed.
Turn 3: Impact.
For those curious how it would work against a Distant target:
Turn 3: Missile burns through Long, begins to work on Distant. (16 of 50).
Turn 4: 36 of 50.
Turn 5: Impact.
I think this is a lot more interesting and dramatic.
ErinPalette said:
Yeah you're right Erin. There is also no advantage with that rule for Beam vs Pulse as someone pointed out that the +4 to hit is only for "attacks" not PD. I would think we would want to incorporate a bonus for both. Like +1/+2 for double triple, and a +1/+2 for beam/pulse
ErinPalette
Mongoose
I like both of these suggestions!Nerhesi said:I would think we would want to incorporate a bonus for both. Like +1/+2 for double triple, and a +1/+2 for beam/pulse
Nerhesi said:Yeah you're right Erin. There is also no advantage with that rule for Beam vs Pulse as someone pointed out that the +4 to hit is only for "attacks" not PD. I would think we would want to incorporate a bonus for both. Like +1/+2 for double triple, and a +1/+2 for beam/pulse
a minor note - if only beam and pulse can be used as PD, then we need 0/+1 rather than +1/+2
Regardless of the precise bonus, you need to factor this into the average effect against the salvo (which I know you will, just my minor rules ocd)
arcador said:Nerhesi said:Yeah you're right Erin. There is also no advantage with that rule for Beam vs Pulse as someone pointed out that the +4 to hit is only for "attacks" not PD. I would think we would want to incorporate a bonus for both. Like +1/+2 for double triple, and a +1/+2 for beam/pulse
a minor note - if only beam and pulse can be used as PD, then we need 0/+1 rather than +1/+2
With the Effect of the PD roll dictating how MANY missiles you take out, the +1 difference does translate into 1 more missile per weapon
Absolutely, It may need to be that you take the better only if it makes up 90%+ of the PD weapons, to avoid abuses
Okay, everybody! It looks like we are going to print tomorrow, and I am happy to report that;
1. We are using Nerhesi's damage system.
2. We are using Erin's flight and endurance times.
3. The DMs for double and triple turrets are back in (the difference between pulse and beam is a step too far, I feel, for PD).
Well done, everybody, I think we have licked it! I hope you all enjoyed this process as much as I did, and are now looking forward to seeing all your hard work in print!
1. We are using Nerhesi's damage system.
2. We are using Erin's flight and endurance times.
3. The DMs for double and triple turrets are back in (the difference between pulse and beam is a step too far, I feel, for PD).
Well done, everybody, I think we have licked it! I hope you all enjoyed this process as much as I did, and are now looking forward to seeing all your hard work in print!
Chas said:
For the Core Book, this is just fine. For High Guard ships, we'll have some aids to counter the jamming of missiles.
It may not be required gents. EW goes from "GREAT!" in the core-rulebook (when you're being fire upon by 20-30 missiles tops), to just another minor piece of defense in High Guard, when you could be on the receiving end of 100s/1000s.
Suddenly, EW goes from taking out 10-20% of the missiles per turn, to taking out 1-2%. As it stands now, I think we're fine but we just need to see how missiles play out in barrage/capital scale rules In fact, the numbers indicate that you may have to worry about overwhelming missiles in HG, not the defenses against them
Suddenly, EW goes from taking out 10-20% of the missiles per turn, to taking out 1-2%. As it stands now, I think we're fine but we just need to see how missiles play out in barrage/capital scale rules
In fact, the numbers indicate that you may have to worry about overwhelming missiles in HG, not the defenses against them Nerhesi said:It may not be required gents. EW goes from "GREAT!" in the core-rulebook (when you're being fire upon by 20-30 missiles tops), to just another minor piece of defense in High Guard, when you could be on the receiving end of 100s/1000s.
Suddenly, EW goes from taking out 10-20% of the missiles per turn, to taking out 1-2%. As it stands now, I think we're fine but we just need to see how missiles play out in barrage/capital scale rules
But then that breaks the scaling aspect of things. If the EW system for a 800 ton Mercenary cruiser is the equivalent of what a 250,000 ton dreadnought can do... then we've got a problem. Larger ships have more space, more power, more crew, more everything. So logically pretty much everything should scale UP, or DOWN accordingly.
phavoc said:
Obviously something we need to keep an eye on - though one immediate benefit of big ships with huge crews is that they can deal with multiple missile salvos, rather than just one...
ErinPalette
Mongoose
Perhaps if you were to add a Mongoose version of T5's Datacaster? EW is necessarily limited because you are using the ship's sensor suite to damage the missiles. Datacasters would allow you to turretize and weaponize the EW aspects of sensors.
I made a conversion for it in my campaign (http://lurkingrhythmically.blogspot.com/2015/09/traveller-tuesday-datacasters.html) and I'm currently playtesting its effectiveness.
I made a conversion for it in my campaign (http://lurkingrhythmically.blogspot.com/2015/09/traveller-tuesday-datacasters.html) and I'm currently playtesting its effectiveness.
phavoc said:Nerhesi said:It may not be required gents. EW goes from "GREAT!" in the core-rulebook (when you're being fire upon by 20-30 missiles tops), to just another minor piece of defense in High Guard, when you could be on the receiving end of 100s/1000s.
Suddenly, EW goes from taking out 10-20% of the missiles per turn, to taking out 1-2%. As it stands now, I think we're fine but we just need to see how missiles play out in barrage/capital scale rules
But then that breaks the scaling aspect of things. If the EW system for a 800 ton Mercenary cruiser is the equivalent of what a 250,000 ton dreadnought can do... then we've got a problem. Larger ships have more space, more power, more crew, more everything. So logically pretty much everything should scale UP, or DOWN accordingly.
Maybe.. maybe not? Damage scales, but armour shouldn't. Hull scales up as it should though. Range doesn't scale up. Speed doesn't scale up.
I think we need to be aware that not everything has to scale up to be balanced. For example, if we scale up defenses, that causes missiles to remain or become sub-par, then is there any niche or use for missiles? Perhaps it makes sense for missiles to be better as things scale up? Perhaps if we scale up EW defense than missile will become useless, as EW and bare-minimum PD will easily allow a ship to be missile immune?
As Matthew said, it is good to keep an eye on things, but that doesnt mean scale up or down by default. Lets observe the new system, do some analysis, and then determine what is needed
Nerhesi said:Maybe.. maybe not? Damage scales, but armour shouldn't. Hull scales up as it should though. Range doesn't scale up. Speed doesn't scale up.
I think we need to be aware that not everything has to scale up to be balanced. For example, if we scale up defenses, that causes missiles to remain or become sub-par, then is there any niche or use for missiles? Perhaps it makes sense for missiles to be better as things scale up? Perhaps if we scale up EW defense than missile will become useless, as EW and bare-minimum PD will easily allow a ship to be missile immune?
As Matthew said, it is good to keep an eye on things, but that doesnt mean scale up or down by default. Lets observe the new system, do some analysis, and then determine what is needed
Depends on how you look at things there I suppose. Speed scales up, as does hull, and range, but much depends on how you want to compare the scales. In some instances scale is a percentage (fuel, dirve size, etc), other times it scales up, but in a different fashion (range bands for example). I'm trying not to be a rules lawyer with being super specific for everything. So lets go with "pretty much everything scales" and leave it at that.
Getting back to your point - defenses on a larger ship are on a different scale. If we are allowing defenses at all, a 100,000 Dton ship is going to laugh when the 800 ton ship fires it's missiles. The defense factors should eliminate any risk. The reverse would also be reversed - the 800 ton ship should just die (no Force here) if the larger ship turns even a quarter of it's weapons to bear.
So it's fair to ask about how the scaling part fits into the overall structure. I mentioned elsewhere about potentially needing a different combat system. And the more I see in the discussions, the more likely it seems like it's going to be necessary. combat between adventure class ships can already get pretty damn complicated, with all the roll adjustments that potentially can be made (+1 for a double turreted laser, +2 for the gunner skill, -1 for etc...). Now lets add in TL modifiers, pilot evasion rolls.. It would seem to me that the zeal to add/remove die modifiers is getting a bit out of hand.
But getting back to the point at hand, a ship that is twice your size should conceivably kick your butt - so long as they are the same class type (military ships should pretty much always beat a civilian ship, though the lines are somewhat blurred in Traveller). Players will, of course, try to build min/max ships whereas stock designs would be more or less balanced along off/def activities.
Finally, I thought this WAS the place to bring up questions BEFORE the rules got solidified? Once they get published it's nigh impossible to change them.
phavoc said:
? How when that is specifically not the case?
Hull scales up. Speed and Range doesn't - at all. The 9G max is reachable with a 100-tonner as it is with the 100k tonner, same with that maximum weapon ranges. We wont see Battleships with 12G drives, neither will we see some Distant range Particle Bays. So I think this is clearly, NOT everything scales up Phavoc.
Agreed - and this doesn't need any further "scaling" to happen - at all. Building a 500-ton ship, then a 1000-ton variant (same capability as you indicate), will see the 1000-ton ship the victor every time, given that the same variables are in play (skill of crew, weapons/ship role, etc). This is accomplished without any special scaling up rules required as you move up in tonnage - the current ruleset supports this and near-gaurantees it.
Agreed. Too bad we haven't even seen them yet to start worrying about them being solidified
Considering we haven't seen the the mass/capital scale combat rules at all, then we can't reliably make assumptions to question them yet. We just postulate possible concerns - for all we know Matt has already taken this into account. Otherwise, it is similar to me stating that I really think barrage attacks should suffer a penalty to hitting flights of fighters/small craft before seeing how the system works.
Ultimately we're just arguing opinions here on something we haven't seen yet.
ErinPalette
Mongoose
Last night I playtested Matt's proposed changes to EW and Point Defense.
Now I'm not sure if my players just have remarkable luck, or the PCs have skills far above average, but they managed to completely destroy 3 salvos of 12 missiles each before a single one hit them.
I understand the appeal of the simplicity of a system where Effect equals number of missiles destroyed, but that was just gorram frustrating because I wanted to score at least ONE missile strike on them to test out the new damage rating.
Don't know about you folks, but I won't be using the new EW/PD system.
Now I'm not sure if my players just have remarkable luck, or the PCs have skills far above average, but they managed to completely destroy 3 salvos of 12 missiles each before a single one hit them.
I understand the appeal of the simplicity of a system where Effect equals number of missiles destroyed, but that was just gorram frustrating because I wanted to score at least ONE missile strike on them to test out the new damage rating.
Don't know about you folks, but I won't be using the new EW/PD system.
PsiTraveller
Cosmic Mongoose
I am trying to figure out a way to get armour to scale. A 10 000 ton ship should be able to put on enough armour that a single laser beam does not do more than pucker the paint. As it stands armour caps at TL level, so a 10 000 ton ship reduces the same amount of damage that a 100 ton ship reduces, even a 10 ton ship with the same percentage of armour has the same toughness against weaponry.
And once spinals get into play what point is there in armour for big ships anyway? Why spend millions of Credits when you reduce 12-15 points of damage from a 3000 point hit?
Now if armour scaled up so that for every X number of tons you multiplied the damage reduced by a percentage then you get into the realm of battleships with big slabs of protective armour ignoring hits from lesser weapons, shells bouncing off etc. So instead of 12 points of damage negated t may be 50 times that if the ship is 3000 tons or more, or 100 times that amount if the ship is 10 000 tons or heavier, or more. Do we want a battleship to be able to shrug off a Destructive hit?
Or maybe we want ships to be eggshells armed with sledgehammers? Space combat is inherently destructive and a no win situation for either side. Make it a Pyrrhic victory for both sides. A ship may win, but be chewed to pieces in the process.
I keep trying to figure out the point it is not worth putting any armour on a ship and spending the money on other ships. Once Destructive weapons come into play and a ship can be taken out almost instantly it may be better to just build more eggshells instead of wrapping them in (cost wise) gold foil for all the good it does to protect them.
And once spinals get into play what point is there in armour for big ships anyway? Why spend millions of Credits when you reduce 12-15 points of damage from a 3000 point hit?
Now if armour scaled up so that for every X number of tons you multiplied the damage reduced by a percentage then you get into the realm of battleships with big slabs of protective armour ignoring hits from lesser weapons, shells bouncing off etc. So instead of 12 points of damage negated t may be 50 times that if the ship is 3000 tons or more, or 100 times that amount if the ship is 10 000 tons or heavier, or more. Do we want a battleship to be able to shrug off a Destructive hit?
Or maybe we want ships to be eggshells armed with sledgehammers? Space combat is inherently destructive and a no win situation for either side. Make it a Pyrrhic victory for both sides. A ship may win, but be chewed to pieces in the process.
I keep trying to figure out the point it is not worth putting any armour on a ship and spending the money on other ships. Once Destructive weapons come into play and a ship can be taken out almost instantly it may be better to just build more eggshells instead of wrapping them in (cost wise) gold foil for all the good it does to protect them.
