Scaling Combat - Playtest Rules

[MongooseMatt]

Okay, bearing in mind that we like quick and easy, a proposed revision to existing rulers in Mercenary for scaling battles between spacecraft and other stuff...



Traveller operates on two different scales when it comes to combat. First, there is the ‘personal’ level where characters battle one another. Vehicles also operate on this scale. Above this, there is the spacecraft level, where ships carry enough weaponry to boil a tank in one blast (note that a third scale, mass battles, is introduced later in this book, but that is really a subset of the personal scale combat rules).

Because spacecraft scale weaponry is so lethal to ground forces, it is not often that a vehicle (much less characters!) will ever want to make a stand against a ship. Most smaller weapons simply do not have the power to blast through the thick armour of spacecraft. In fact, they can do little more than scratch its paint. This is because spacecraft are shielded from the void of space and layered in thick armour designed to withstand the raw radiation of a star and absolute zero temperatures – a bullet or laser blast just pales in comparison.

The only weapons capable of damaging the exterior of a spacecraft are Destructive weapons, detailed on page XX.

Note that when engaging spacecraft engage personal scale targets or vice versa, combat is played with rounds of six seconds, not the usual six minutes of spacecraft scale.

Personal vs. Spacecraft
If a Destructive weapon targets a spacecraft, it loses its Destructive trait but its damage is treated as if it were a spacecraft scale weapon, rolling as normal on the table on page 150 of the Traveller Core Rulebook.

Spacecraft vs. Personal
If a spacecraft weapon targets anything on the personal scale, be it a vehicle or a (very unlucky!) character, it gains the Destructive trait and then rolls for damage normally, likely vaporising any character it strikes or seriously damaging even the most heavily armoured vehicle.

 

[Infojunky]

Ok Matt, I am just spitballing here, just throwing out the ideas that popped up reading this.

Okay, bearing in mind that we like quick and easy, a proposed revision to existing rulers in Mercenary for scaling battles between spacecraft and other stuff...

Traveller operates on two different scales when it comes to combat. First, there is the ‘personal’ level where characters battle one another. Vehicles also operate on this scale. Above this, there is the spacecraft level, where ships carry enough weaponry to boil a tank in one blast (note that a third scale, mass battles, is introduced later in this book, but that is really a subset of the personal scale combat rules).

Actually there are three different scales, just the larger two are kinda intermixed, Personnel, Adventure scale starships, and Naval. the last two are defined by their armament Adventure is generally turret armed (Think 5 inch guns). And Naval ships are Bays and spinal mounts. Why three? Bay weapons tend to eat smaller ships as they eat most ground vehicles.

Because spacecraft scale weaponry is so lethal to ground forces, it is not often that a vehicle (much less characters!) will ever want to make a stand against a ship. Most smaller weapons simply do not have the power to blast through the thick armour of spacecraft. In fact, they can do little more than scratch its paint. This is because spacecraft are shielded from the void of space and layered in thick armour designed to withstand the raw radiation of a star and absolute zero temperatures – a bullet or laser blast just pales in comparison.

Reality Check. There is a HUGE difference between Armor and Protection from Temperature and and Radiation, in fact the Armour is pretty piss-poor against the latter two, but composite hulls with Armour layers and other composite materials can do the job. But really I am splitting hairs here, so as such am responding to a bit of a bombastic description as anything else.

The only weapons capable of damaging the exterior of a spacecraft are Destructive weapons, detailed on page XX.

Note that when engaging spacecraft engage personal scale targets or vice versa, combat is played with rounds of six seconds, not the usual six minutes of spacecraft scale.

Personal vs. Spacecraft
If a Destructive weapon targets a spacecraft, it loses its Destructive trait but its damage is treated as if it were a spacecraft scale weapon, rolling as normal on the table on page 150 of the Traveller Core Rulebook.

Spacecraft vs. Personal
If a spacecraft weapon targets anything on the personal scale, be it a vehicle or a (very unlucky!) character, it gains the Destructive trait and then rolls for damage normally, likely vaporising any character it strikes or seriously damaging even the most heavily armoured vehicle.

Ok, despite what I said before I think this is good. Mind you that many of your State-of-the-Art Tanks are going to be similarly equipped or they won't exist so much. In that why deploy a tank that relatively cheap Laser armed starfighter can eat for lunch. (Weirdly though this does lay great groundwork for Contragravity ships a'la H. Beam Piper). Also Note said Tanks might have Destructive class weaponry, but there is a good chance they won't be able to shrug off a hit from their own main weapon (In the real world this often the case)

Ok I also would like to point out that the idea of a PGMPs or FGMPs (especially) being Destructive weapons just tickles me pink. (Note traditionally the Imperial Marines deploy and APC with a squad that carries enough nuclear firepower to make a fairly large city uninhabitable for a very long time, so scale from that ideal).

 

[locarno24]

Ok I also would like to point out that the idea of a PGMPs or FGMPs (especially) being Destructive weapons just tickles me pink. (Note traditionally the Imperial Marines deploy and APC with a squad that carries enough nuclear firepower to make a fairly large city uninhabitable for a very long time, so scale from that ideal).

They're not. Although I can see an argument for them being scaled waaay back to 1D6 and given destructive, because I'd also think that a squad of marines auto-firing PGMPs into an "unarmoured" or "lightly armoured" starship ought to cause it some serious grief fairly swiftly. Ditto for tank-mounted fusion weapons.

"Only Destructive Weapons Can Hurt Starships" is fine. I can deal with that, and it's simple. I like simple in RPG rules, because it lets me get on with the game. My one comment is that if that's the rules, you need to be a bit more liberal with the Destructive trait than you have been in travshooting.doc.

Bear in mind when these rules are most likely to be used in game: Only the TL14 26mm Orbital Defence Cannon and the TL8 800mm Siege Gun can hurt a parked pinnace or shuttle? The damn things don't have any starship scale armour, after all.

I would argue that most weapons with 10+ D6 damage should be looked at with a view as to whether they should be 1D6 D for damage instead. This would put the list of stuff which can blow up a small craft as:

100mm Counterbattery Mass Driver Gun, 110mm Heavy Strafing Rocket Pod, 120mm Cannon
120mm Light Mass Driver Gun, 12mm Light Gauss Cannon, 140mm Heavy Mass Driver Gun
15mm Heavy Hypervelocity Cannon, 16mm Medium Gauss Cannon, 175mm Heavy Gun, 180mm Light Bombardment Rocket Pod, 200mm Demolition Gun, 22mm Heavy Gauss Cannon, 240mm Heavy Bombardment Rocket Pod, 26mm Orbital Defence Cannon, 280mm Railway Gun, 35mm Rail Gun, 400mm Bombardment Gun, 5mm Light Hypervelocity Cannon, Aerospace Defence Laser, Anti-Material Rifle, Disposable ML Rocket Pod, FGMP ,Fusion X/Y/Z Guns, Plasma A/B/C Guns

Now, with the exception of the AMR (and even then, it's a TL10 version of a Barratt), all of these are serious "the GM has had it with your ****" weapons, and I would see no problem with them being able to inflict up to 6 damage (which, let's not, is only going to cause one single hit or double hit at most) on a small craft or similar small starship.

As Infojunky says, I accept that starships are tough, but a 50dTon gunship isn't massively bigger than a large tank, and hence shouldn't be magically immune to antitank weapons - or at least if it is, tanks would be made out of the same stuff. Equally, a Pulse Laser in a single fixed mount takes up not much more volume than an artillery piece. The equivalent of 20D6 is fine. 100D6 using the old x50 scaling was just ridiculous, because again, why bother with any tank weapon when a civilian point defence laser is so much better?


Second question: what happens if I fire an Ultra-Destructive weapon at a starship?
I'm not massively convinced this category adds anything, as opposed to just a destructive weapon with twice as many dice. A 1D AP5 weapon is different from a 2D weapon because the latter is noticably better at chewing up unarmoured dudes, but a 2D D and a 1D UD weapon are literally indistinguishable and hence the category doesn't add anything to the game.



Also, just as a note, I also like the rules the other way. A beam laser (the most likely starship weapon to get used on a ground target) becomes 1D D, which is survivable if you're lucky but more than sufficient to handle even tanks in a couple of hits. It also makes options that people would previously have ignored worth looking at - High Yield and Very High Yield beam lasers do a minimum of 20 and 30 damage respectively for a modest cost increase, making them very useful for ground fire.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Actually there are three different scales, just the larger two are kinda intermixed, Personnel, Adventure scale starships, and Naval. the last two are defined by their armament Adventure is generally turret armed (Think 5 inch guns). And Naval ships are Bays and spinal mounts. Why three? Bay weapons tend to eat smaller ships as they eat most ground vehicles.

Rules-wise, the naval side of things is the same as other spacecraft (until we get into barrages, but that is something else entirely and does not need touching on in Mercenary).

In that why deploy a tank that relatively cheap Laser armed starfighter can eat for lunch.

Aircraft (spacecraft) beat tanks. Been that way for a few decades, so I am okay with this

(Doesn't apply to Hammers Slammers, but different settings can insert their own rules and exceptions if needed - with core rules we just try to hit as many common bases as possible).

 

[locarno24]

Agreed, but not because the tank's main armament bounces off the fighter!

 

[Jame Rowe]

Agreed, but not because the tank's main armament bounces off the fighter!

A tank, even a modern real world one, should be able to damage a starfighter or small starship - I would see a standard freighter's protection being geared towards radiation, micrometeorites and atmospheric entry. So a man-portable plasma gun or tank/vehicle mounted laser should be able to do stuff like reduce sensors or destroy/render inoperable airlocks, landing gear and etc. - not necessarily going to destroy the ship but a lucky hit on the bridge/cockpit risks crew damage (roll that critical effect, Good MechWarrior!*), without destroying the actual ship.

*I've been on a Battletech binge lately. Yes, it's kinda creeping in - but in Traveller heavy weapons should be at least a minor threat to a light starship - that's why a merchant crew will either flee or surrender when they see the pirates with a PGMP; they're saying, "oh no, they got a big gun! They can get in the airlock!"

 

[phavoc]

Actually there are three different scales, just the larger two are kinda intermixed, Personnel, Adventure scale starships, and Naval. the last two are defined by their armament Adventure is generally turret armed (Think 5 inch guns). And Naval ships are Bays and spinal mounts. Why three? Bay weapons tend to eat smaller ships as they eat most ground vehicles.

Rules-wise, the naval side of things is the same as other spacecraft (until we get into barrages, but that is something else entirely and does not need touching on in Mercenary).

In that why deploy a tank that relatively cheap Laser armed starfighter can eat for lunch.

Aircraft (spacecraft) beat tanks. Been that way for a few decades, so I am okay with this

(Doesn't apply to Hammers Slammers, but different settings can insert their own rules and exceptions if needed - with core rules we just try to hit as many common bases as possible).

Vehicle, even ground armaments, have always been able to beat aircraft since the very beginning of aircraft. An aircraft's primary defense is it's speed and that it's (generally) in the attacking mode and gets to choose the method in which it gets to attack. But a shoulder-launched missile can down an aircraft, a pintel-mounted .50 cal on a 4x4 can shoot down a fighter. That same .50 cal barely annoys a M1 (or Chieftan) tank. Adding more tech to ground-based weapons gives them better tracking and power and makes them more capable to engage fighter aircraft.

Traveller has always had a disconnect when it comes to more powerful vehicle-based weapons. A fusion or plasma-equipped tank has (or should) have the power to tear up a non-armored starship. Essentially they are scaled-down starship-class weapons. At some point starship armor would stop or at least blunt the attack of weapons. I doubt this will be changed but it would be nice to see it fixed.

 

[locarno24]

Traveller has always had a disconnect when it comes to more powerful vehicle-based weapons. A fusion or plasma-equipped tank has (or should) have the power to tear up a non-armored starship. Essentially they are scaled-down starship-class weapons. At some point starship armor would stop or at least blunt the attack of weapons. I doubt this will be changed but it would be nice to see it fixed.

As I say, this is why i like the Destructive trait - it bridges the gap between 'spacecraft' and 'non-spacecraft' weapons - and having a reasonable selection of 1D Destructive weapons for fusion and plasma weapons, as well as artillery-calibre gauss weapons, allows them to bridge that gap.

I'm not, in all honesty, bothered about trying to shoot down fighters; as I said, the most common interaction between starship and personal scale in Traveller is a small craft like a pinnace, shuttle or ship's boat being shot at by marines, pirates, starport authority, or whatever.

A squad auto-firing FGMPs should cause serious damage to a civilian shuttle, and surely an emplaced "aerospace defence laser" should be able to?

 

[phavoc]

I'm not, in all honesty, bothered about trying to shoot down fighters; as I said, the most common interaction between starship and personal scale in Traveller is a small craft like a pinnace, shuttle or ship's boat being shot at by marines, pirates, starport authority, or whatever.

A squad auto-firing FGMPs should cause serious damage to a civilian shuttle, and surely an emplaced "aerospace defence laser" should be able to?

Agreed. The scene from Revenge of the Jedi, where Han Solo is trying to leave Hoth and the troopers show up and start blasting his ship and he ignores them, but when they show up with a crew-served blaster he has to take action. That's how I imagine these kinds of things should be. Certain types of weapons should be considered dangerous to smaller ships. It seems that either weapons are overly dangerous or will barely scratch the paint, with very little middle ground.

 

[Infojunky]

Actually there are three different scales, just the larger two are kinda intermixed, Personnel, Adventure scale starships, and Naval. the last two are defined by their armament Adventure is generally turret armed (Think 5 inch guns). And Naval ships are Bays and spinal mounts. Why three? Bay weapons tend to eat smaller ships as they eat most ground vehicles.

Rules-wise, the naval side of things is the same as other spacecraft (until we get into barrages, but that is something else entirely and does not need touching on in Mercenary).

Yes, it just a point that I felt needed to made in terms of scale, and mostly pointless in terms of Mercenary. Except in the terms of Naval gunfire support.

In that why deploy a tank that relatively cheap Laser armed starfighter can eat for lunch.

Aircraft (spacecraft) beat tanks. Been that way for a few decades, so I am okay with this

The secondary point is then Tanks are going to start looking like Spacecraft, or I should say heavy surface combatants will look like ships. As I said this doesn't bother as such but the Traveller I have played over the years has been very Piper-esqe.

(Doesn't apply to Hammers Slammers, but different settings can insert their own rules and exceptions if needed - with core rules we just try to hit as many common bases as possible).

Weirdly yes it does, in that it takes a large central computer to provide direction to a mass of distributed Starship Scale turrets (i.e. Tanks). Without that central direction said Tanks ranges are limited to the range of their onboard sensors which are limited to local planetary ranges. The big trick in the Hammer's universe is the network not the weapons.

 

[Infojunky]

Ok I also would like to point out that the idea of a PGMPs or FGMPs (especially) being Destructive weapons just tickles me pink. (Note traditionally the Imperial Marines deploy and APC with a squad that carries enough nuclear firepower to make a fairly large city uninhabitable for a very long time, so scale from that ideal).

They're not. Although I can see an argument for them being scaled waaay back to 1D6 and given destructive, because I'd also think that a squad of marines auto-firing PGMPs into an "unarmoured" or "lightly armoured" starship ought to cause it some serious grief fairly swiftly. Ditto for tank-mounted fusion weapons.

I am glad I am not alone in this idea. Always in my mind both the PGMP and FGMP have always been gobsmackingly powerful.

I would argue that most weapons with 10+ D6 damage should be looked at with a view as to whether they should be 1D6 D for damage instead. This would put the list of stuff which can blow up a small craft as:

Yep, I snipped a bunch, but there is a bunch of artillery scale weaponry that should be able to damage a Smallcraft.

As Infojunky says, I accept that starships are tough, but a 50dTon gunship isn't massively bigger than a large tank, and hence shouldn't be magically immune to antitank weapons - or at least if it is, tanks would be made out of the same stuff. Equally, a Pulse Laser in a single fixed mount takes up not much more volume than an artillery piece. The equivalent of 20D6 is fine. 100D6 using the old x50 scaling was just ridiculous, because again, why bother with any tank weapon when a civilian point defence laser is so much better?

A 10 dTon launch is closer to a MBT in size, but the idea is the same. I have often thought that Small Craft and small starships should have a scale of their own.

 

[Nerhesi]

So did we get rid of Ultra Destructive as well? We can just do everything as destructive, dont think we need Ultra.

Bit of quick math - an Orbital defence laser does 2d6 in damage (basically a pulse laser). Correct?

A spaceship pulse laser hitting a person/vehicle is doing 2DD, so 2d6 x 10 ignoring armor, correct?

 

[Infojunky]

Ok getting into the LIST at the end of the sample document, I have several questions.

First off what is Damage? In that what does it represent to you? Is it the sheer penetration of said weapon or is it penetration and wounding potential all muddled together?

Then there is the question of the internal scale of damage. In that median Pistol damage is 3d6-3, Rifle (lumping a wide range of rifles into one band) is 3d6 damage. Then you ad in the various levels of armor piercing. So maybe it is a question of what are the general equivalences of damage?

Pistols at 3d6-3 (9mm)
Light rifles/carbines/pdw at 3d6 (5.56mm)
Regular rifles at 3d6+3 (7.62mm)
Where do heavy rifles fit in? Or better yet how do they fit in? How does all this fit together with Armour piercing?

 

[locarno24]

Armour piercing should very much be the exception, not the rule, to my mind.

Damage is a mish-mash of penetration and organic damage ability. You should only be calling on the AP trait when there's a significant penetrative ability - or, more accurately, if the weapon is significantly unable to cause damage to an unarmoured target.

A HMG burst will turn you into chopped meat, and will punch through some armour at reduced effect. It doesn't need an AP trait per se; if its damage score is not enough to represent its effect, then increase it.

A needle beam, by comparison, puts a 1mm x 1mm neat hole through you whether you're wearing artillery battle dress or a hawaiian shirt. The fact that your unarmoured doesn't mean that the damage done increases.

For the most part "primitive" weapons are 2D6 damage, "modern" 3D6 and "advanced" 4D6+. There may be an extra point or penalty here or there, but I'm far from bothered. I never liked the original Central Supply Catalogue for this reason; Traveller is not a game with the Nth degree of detail modelled in combat - I neither want nor need the ability to differentiate between two almost identical rifles instead of just lumping them both in the 'rifle' category and getting on with the story. The effect of being shot with either is "you're half dead. Don't get shot again." - do the details really matter?

 

[Infojunky]

Actually it looks like I confused threads with my damage question as it pertains to the playtest Doc that Matt posted.