|
Post by creativehum on Mar 15, 2018 21:52:57 GMT -5
As I said in the post where I referenced the Hit Location Table from the 1977 edition, I only mentioned this to makofan because he wants to try the space combat out from different editions of Traveller. Because there is no Critical Hit in the 1977 edition, he might want to consider playing out a 1977 version of the game in his "Many Rules." The original edition will produce a different kind of play than the 1981 edition.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 16, 2018 8:30:49 GMT -5
I sold my 1977 a long, long time ago (slaps himself in head) I currently own 3BB 1981, Starter Traveller, Mayday, High Guard, Megatraveller, Mongoose Traveller, and Mongoose High Guard. Once I buy 1977 I will also simulate that
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Mar 16, 2018 8:49:43 GMT -5
I sold my 1977 a long, long time ago (slaps himself in head) I currently own 3BB 1981, Starter Traveller, Mayday, High Guard, Megatraveller, Mongoose Traveller, and Mongoose High Guard. Once I buy 1977 I will also simulate that If you don't have the FFE Classic Traveller CD-ROM, buy it... It's got lots of good stuff, including the only legal source of CT 1977 PDF... If you have it, but don't have 1977 on your CD-ROM, contact Marc to get the update (at a nominal cost). Frank
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Darci on Mar 16, 2018 9:27:14 GMT -5
Following this with interest. Avidly!
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 16, 2018 11:58:17 GMT -5
I have split off a thread to follow through the battle with dragondaddy's interpretations I will re-do my first turn as I am supposed to roll once per turret, not once per gun Look for it this weekend
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 16, 2018 20:18:35 GMT -5
Fascinating threads!
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 18, 2018 0:21:24 GMT -5
Pirates, for example, are much better off developing a reputation for boarding for cargo but not harming passengers and crew rather than killing everyone off once on board. If your reputation is that you'll kill everyone, the defending ship will, of course, fight tooth and nail to keep you away -- having nothing else to lose. Golden Age Piracy can be said to be a classic exercise in applied terrorism. If a target surrendered when the pirates raised their black flag (sometimes decorated with a captain's distinct emblem), the crew would be spared.* But if a target tried to run or fight, the pirates then raised their red flag, which meant no quarter would be given, that everyone aboard the target would be killed, often after being gruesomely tortured. *Pirates usually had little respect for passengers, except for those who they thought might be profitably held for ransom. Pirates could be especially cruel and inventive when they suspected someone of trying to hide valuables. Finally, pirates would often ask the ship's crew if their captain was a "hard horse" (someone who liked to flog his crew) and if the answer was in the affirmative, the pirates would gleefully take turns flogging the captain (often to death).
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 18, 2018 17:06:51 GMT -5
Book 2, page 29 I always interpreted a triple laser turret as three weapons, dragondaddy interprets it as one weapon. What does everybody think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 17:41:09 GMT -5
Book 2, page 29 I always interpreted a triple laser turret as three weapons, dragondaddy interprets it as one weapon. What does everybody think? I'm most conversant in the '77 rules, which state in Book 2 p. 12: Allows engagement of indicated number of targets by a single ship, but not a single turret to do so. The cite in question is regarding the offensive program multi-target.
Also in Book 2, p. 29 states under "Laser Fire": All lasers from one turret must fire on the same target; lasers from different turrets may fire on different targets if a multi-target program is running and will allow such activity.
Then, later on (still in) Book 2, p. 32 regarding "Double Fire": The normal dice throw to hit is made twice.
So ... this tells me non-double fire, i. e. "normal" fire, has a single to hit roll. I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 18, 2018 17:43:23 GMT -5
cool, I can agree to that
|
|
|
Post by creativehum on Mar 18, 2018 20:43:23 GMT -5
Book 2, page 29 I always interpreted a triple laser turret as three weapons, dragondaddy interprets it as one weapon. What does everybody think? I had a little trouble understanding which side of the question Piper came out on. I hope he is saying that each laser makes a separate roll. Because that's what the rules literally say in both the 1977 and 1981 Book 2 rules. (And The Traveller Book, and Starter Traveller.) Clearly: A throw is made for each firing laser weapon (not each turret). Here is a thing I have observed about arguments about Basic Traveller rules: People will ignore a plainly made statement and dig into all sorts of sub-statements that have to be interpreted in the correct manner to justify a point... which is all belied by simply paying attention to a plain statement which makes the rule at hand clear. There's no need to think about this much. As makofan quoted, the rules are plain: The dice throw with the attendant DMs is made once for each firing laser weapon. Each laser on a single target must attack the same target. But plain as day each laser makes a separate roll to hit. I hope, makofan, you'll allow the rules to roll as written in a thread devoted to your interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2018 22:53:58 GMT -5
I had a little trouble understanding which side of the question Piper came out on. [ snippage] People will ignore a plainly made statement and dig into all sorts of sub-statements that have to be interpreted in the correct manner to justify a point... which is all belied by simply paying attention to a plain statement which makes the rule at hand clear. My apologies for the confusion! I'm sorry for muddying the waters, thank you for the clarifying post.
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Mar 18, 2018 23:04:20 GMT -5
Book 2, page 29 I always interpreted a triple laser turret as three weapons, dragondaddy interprets it as one weapon. What does everybody think? I had a little trouble understanding which side of the question Piper came out on. I hope he is saying that each laser makes a separate roll. Because that's what the rules literally say in both the 1977 and 1981 Book 2 rules. (And The Traveller Book, and Starter Traveller.) Clearly: A throw is made for each firing laser weapon (not each turret).Clearly not. Each Turret is a Laser Weapon. A single turret has one laser and inflicts one hit, a double turret has two lasers, therefore inflicts two hits (when the single to-hit roll is made, and a hit is indicated), and a triple turret inflicts three hits. Not only will three hits be made with a triple turret, they all hit in the same location on the target, i.e. if a triple beam laser turret hits the Maneuver drive on the target ship, the Maneuver Drive takes three hits. If, for example, one of the three lasers malfunctions on your turret, you have to take the entire turret of three lasers offline. This is just common sense. If your triple laser turret is hit, you don't have two lasers remaining available to fire, very likely, your gunner inside the turret is dead as well, and one hit on the triple laser turret in the original game disabled all three lasers, at least until the turret is repaired. All three lasers might actually be functional, but without the capability of the turret to traverse on the x and y axis, the entire turret is useless. I have always considered these as a single laser weapon that delivers more damage, when functional. High Guard clarified this very dispute which had occurred before (but not in our gaming group), ...on page 29 stating; Batteries: Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries. Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type of weapon must group them into batteries. A Battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code. On ships 1000 tons and under. mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases, each weapon is a battery.
If a ship has only one battery of a particular type, then a weapon hit on it reduces its weapon code by one; it does not eliminate the battery.
These rules concerning turrets and batteries, were of course implicitly understood by us, even before High Guard was released in 1980, because that was the way we played. We were kind of surprised that these rules were spelled out in High Guard, but glad that the triple turrets were able to take three hits before being disabled, because we hadn't been playing it that way, prior to the release of High Guard. Any hit on a turret would disable the turret, and possibly kill the gunner as well. It also didn't hurt that our presumptions were informed by practical experience later with actual weapons systems, including turreted weapons systems. In my case it was experience with M247 Sgt. York, a modified M-60 tank chassis with a turreted dual 40mm cannon setup, designed as a short range anti-aircraft battery. All of the smaller AA guns and cannons were slaved together with the targeting systems and would either have both guns hit, or miss. The soviet weapons systems the ZSU-23 with it's quad 23mm autocannons was similarly all slaved together using a single targeting system (but the acquisition & tracking radar could track multiple targets simultaneously). Is the gunner with a quad .50 cal Heavy Machine Gun separately targeting different parts of an enemy destroyer, No! He is using one targeting system, and shooting one thing at a time, with all four .50 cal machine guns. Now the larger Naval guns were not slaved together. Anything in the U.S. arsenal using 8 inch diameter shells or larger usually had turrets built with independent traversal, and they would typically fire with each gun on the turret elevated slightly differently in order to "straddle" a target with a salvo from a single turret. Straddling worked really great for rangefinding and for correcting fire, however once the target was properly acquired, the guns in a single turret would be fired in unison to cause maximum damage to the target. i.e. three hits instead of one using a triple turret, and two hits instead of one with a large dual turret. Plus, the combat system was supposed to be fast... so, not rolling multiple times when fewer rolls will do, just seemed elegant, like the rest of the Traveler rules. Combats are extra fast without all that extra rolling.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Mar 18, 2018 23:14:02 GMT -5
Some quotes from the rules (1977):
Turrets are available to contain one, two, or three weapons, which may be of the same or of mixed types.
First, the firing player selects the target at which the turrets of a single ship will fire. All lasers from one turret must fire on the same target; lasers from different turrets may fire on different targets if a multi-target program is running and will allow such activity. The firing player then continues to designate the targets for all of his ships.
Fourth, two dice are thrown, and that result modified by both the attack and defense DMs. lf the modified result equals or exceeds 8, a hit has been achieved. The dice throw is made once for each firing laser weapon. The total number of hits is noted.
To me, all of that reads that each weapon in a double or triple turret is rolled separately. How would you handle a turret that had both a beam laser and a pulse laser?
High Guard has no bearing on Book 2 combat, it has it's own combat system, and with it's design for much larger ships, clearly rolling for each individual weapon doesn't scale (not that it scales well for a 1200 ton cruiser either...).
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Mar 18, 2018 23:25:24 GMT -5
Some quotes from the rules (1977): Fourth, two dice are thrown, and that result modified by both the attack and defense DMs. lf the modified result equals or exceeds 8, a hit has been achieved. The dice throw is made once for each firing laser weapon. The total number of hits is noted. To me, all of that reads that each weapon in a double or triple turret is rolled separately. How would you handle a turret that had both a beam laser and a pulse laser? High Guard has no bearing on Book 2 combat, it has it's own combat system, and with it's design for much larger ships, clearly rolling for each individual weapon doesn't scale (not that it scales well for a 1200 ton cruiser either...). A beam and a pulse laser in the same turret 8+ to hit, with the pulse laser doing double damage, so 3 hits if the turret hits. Reason is, the continuous beam is visible for targeting correction by the gunner giving the entire turret the to-hit bonus that the beam weapon confers. High Guard was specifically written to address some of the disputes that came up (like this one) between different gaming groups. You are right, ...it doesn't have any bearing on the book 2 combat system, however what about the getting back to the common sense that the High Guard ruling clarified. The new combat system did end the dispute of how many to-hit die rolls would be made for a single triple turret, and this did speed up play considerably.
|
|
|
Post by ffilz on Mar 18, 2018 23:42:43 GMT -5
Some quotes from the rules (1977): Fourth, two dice are thrown, and that result modified by both the attack and defense DMs. lf the modified result equals or exceeds 8, a hit has been achieved. The dice throw is made once for each firing laser weapon. The total number of hits is noted. To me, all of that reads that each weapon in a double or triple turret is rolled separately. How would you handle a turret that had both a beam laser and a pulse laser? High Guard has no bearing on Book 2 combat, it has it's own combat system, and with it's design for much larger ships, clearly rolling for each individual weapon doesn't scale (not that it scales well for a 1200 ton cruiser either...). A beam and a pulse laser in the same turret 8+ to hit, with the pulse laser doing double damage, so 3 hits if the turret hits. Reason is, the continuous beam is visible for targeting correction by the gunner giving the entire turret the to-hit bonus that the beam weapon confers. High Guard was specifically written to address some of the disputes that came up (like this one) between different gaming groups. You are right, ...it doesn't have any bearing on the book 2 combat system, however what about the getting back to the common sense that the High Guard ruling clarified. The new combat system did end the dispute of how many to-hit die rolls would be made for a single triple turret, and this did speed up play considerably. Well, makofan can certainly decide how he wants to run it. If you play in one of my games, there will be one roll for each weapon in a double or triple turret... And if the PCs actually get something big enough to have more than a handful of turrets, we'll decide when we start gang rolling (on the other hand, computers make it easy to make 10 or 20 2d6 rolls...). Frank
|
|
|
Post by creativehum on Mar 19, 2018 0:11:45 GMT -5
Gamedaddy, I'm glad you brought up the issue of mixed turrets. In one simple example you have put the issue of whether or not each weapon in the turret fires individually or as a single group. - We know for a fact that beam lasers and pulse lasers need different Throws to successfully hit a target. (A pulse laser fires at DM -1).
- We know that beam lasers and pulse lasers can be mounted in the same turret and fired at the same target.
- Unless we are going to blow off the DM -1 for pulse lasers, by definition each weapon is going to make its own roll to hit.
Now, as I predicted, we are in that peculiar phase of a discussion of Classic Traveller rules where some starts pulling up bits of logic not mentioned in the rules to make a point. In this case, we have this: "Reason is, the continuous beam is visible for targeting correction by the gunner giving the entire turret the to-hit bonus that the beam weapon confers." Of course, there is nothing mentioned about this in the rules. It exists only to justify an argument that falls on its face the moment one refuses to read a simple statement as a simple statement: "The dice throw is made once for each firing laser weapon." Further, it manages to blow past the fact that pulse lasers are supposed to fire at DM -1 -- with nothing mentioned about that DM being removed if mounted in a turret alongside a beam laser. If Miller had wanted the sentence to read "The dice throw is made once for each firing turret," he would have written, "The dice throw is made once for each firing laser turret." But he didn't write that. He wrote the sentence the mean meant to write. And that sentence says, "The dice throw is made once for each firing laser weapon." May I appeal to perhaps a touch of humility on your part? In this thread you first declared that beam lasers get a DM +1 in your efforts to interpret the Pulse Laser rules. This despite the fact the rules in all but one edition of the rules contradicted you. You then declared that ships within orbit around a world are harder for an enemy ship to detect... despite the fact there are no rules for this in the Classic Traveller line. (At least none I could find in skim of Book 2 and Book 5.) I am certain you might played with these rules you mentioned and have been satisfied with them for your group. And I would never tell you not to play with them at your table. But, placed agains the rules as written, you are incorrect in both cases. You have simply misstated the rules twice already in this thread. Is it possible, given that the sentence in Book 2 is as plain as Marc Miller could make it, and that we know that Pulse Lasers and Beam Lasers, per the rules roll at different Throw values... is it possible you might be wrong in this case as well?
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Mar 19, 2018 7:01:58 GMT -5
Gamedaddy, I'm glad you brought up the issue of mixed turrets. In one simple example you have put the issue of whether or not each weapon in the turret fires individually or as a single group. - We know for a fact that beam lasers and pulse lasers need different Throws to successfully hit a target. (A pulse laser fires at DM -1).
- We know that beam lasers and pulse lasers can be mounted in the same turret and fired at the same target.
- Unless we are going to blow off the DM -1 for pulse lasers, by definition each weapon is going to make its own roll to hit.
Is it possible, given that the sentence in Book 2 is as plain as Marc Miller could make it, and that we know that Pulse Lasers and Beam Lasers, per the rules roll at different Throw values... is it possible you might be wrong in this case as well? We are going to blow off the die modifier of -1 for the pulse laser because it is slaved to that beam laser in a dual or triple turret. This is just common sense with the design of the weapon, and the execution of the firing process. One of the reasons I like Traveller so much is that one could focus on science. It was science fiction pure and simple, speculating on making estimated guesses on where science would be in the future, based on where science is right now (Most turrets are currently designed with a single firing system, where dual, triple, or quadruple weapons systems are slaved to a single targeting system, because this is the most efficient system for producing significant damage to a target). Do you have any idea how difficult it would be for the gunners to track where the "disco" lasers you guys are describing would be firing, much less using the turret targeting system to accurately sight and damage using such a weapons systems If I wanted science fantasy, I'd play Gamma World, or Rifts. As I'm getting older, the time I have to use is the most valuable thing I have remaining, so If I have a 1200 ton heavy cruiser with twelve turrets of laser or projectile weapons I'm rolling exactly twelve times to hit, once for each turret. I will not waste my time rolling thirty-six times, when twelve will do just fine. Also, as a side note, rolling thirty-six times instead of twelve to hit with an 8+ basic throw required statistically will significantly reduce the median number of weapon hits as well as reduce the total weapons damage of the dual or triple turrets. Just 'sayin. While sticking to the rules as written is commendable when one doesn't understand the game, when one knows the game, and has the expertise to accurately adjust the rules to provide an improved play experience, one should not hesitate to do so. We actually had this debate back in 1977, including mulling over, and exploring the more ridiculous aspects of having a turret where the cannons can independently traverse on an x and y axis and independently target what the master fire control system in the turret was tracking and targeting, and we decided. Later on, in 1980 when High Guard did come out, ...the rules changed to match the way we were already playing.
With apologies, I'm going to continue to play that way, unless someone comes along and can show me a practical working turret design where a multiple weapon projectile or beam weapon turret can fire simultaneously at more than one target.
|
|
|
Post by creativehum on Mar 19, 2018 9:05:16 GMT -5
Gamedaddy, As for your method of argument, I can counter with rational arguments that justify and explain anything found within the rules as well as you can. Since we are talking about fictional situations and technologies, either one of us might be right in the long run. Such arguments get us nowhere outside of the single table we play at. As for your introduction of Book 5 to the argument: - As Frank has pointed out, Book 5 has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
- As the Introduction in Book 5 points out, Book 2 and Book 5 are two separate rules sets, each to be used independently. Each Book in the CT was a discrete new set of rules to be used as a group of players wished to use or ignore.
Further, even if we assume one has to use the Book 5 rules as some sort of default (which is ridiculous), there is this from Book 5 (which you quoted above): The weapons on a single turret may be grouped into a single battery. Or they may not be. It is a choice to be made, not a given. Which means, until someone choose to form all the similar weapons into a battery, they are not a battery. It is not a given they are a battery, it is a choice that has to be made. So certainly, if one wants to use the rules from Book 5 to form the weapons into a single battery one can. But it is a choice to be made even if the new rules are introduced... not a default position. Further, the battery rules make plain that all the weapon types have to be the same type. Batteries cannot be formed of weapons of different types. So whatever stretch you are trying to make to slave laser beams and pulse beams is fine as far as your house rules go... but the Book 5 rules themselves won't help you on this point, and clearly contradict the notion. Now, I know none of this is going to change your mind. All I can say is "Oh, well..." and remind myself that no one has time for this nonsense.
Makofan, Tthe thing that is really confusing me is that you have bent over backwards trying to accommodate game daddy, even going so far as to establish two separate thread where each of you can interpret the rules as you see fit... and he still is forcing you to play the way he has decided to play. A method of playing, which demands he stop and explain the logic he and his group decided upon forty years ago, rather than using the rules. As for his method of argument, I can counter with rational arguments that justify and explain anything found within the rules as well as he can. Since we are talking about fictional situations and technologies, either one of us might be right in the long run. Such arguments get us nowhere outside of the single table we play at. Why are you allowing him to do this?
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Mar 19, 2018 9:15:06 GMT -5
Oh, well. Anyway, makofan, the thing that is really confusing me is that you have bent over backwards trying to accommodate game daddy, even going so far as to establish two separate thread where each of you can interpret the rules as you see fit... and he still is forcing you to play the way he has decided to play. A method of playing, which demands he stop and explain the logic he and his group decided upon forty years ago, rather than using the rules. (As for his method of argument, I can counter with rational arguments that justify and explain anything found within the rules as well as he can. Since we are talking about fictional situations and technologies, either one of us might be right in the long run. Such arguments get us nowhere outside of the single table we play at.) Why are you allowing him to do this? Now this is just trolling. Here in this forum, I'm not forcing anyone to play in any way whatsoever, and in fact have been waiting for Makofan to continue with describing this engagement. In the other thread,split out using my preferred methods of adjudicating the rules I already posted once, that I would fire two missiles at Jack Sparrow, and then launch sand during my Ordnance phase. In this thread, I have no missiles because my missile turret has been damaged, and the sandcaster is out of commission as well so no ordnance launch phase... next order of business. When I'm making a case for how we intrepreted the Traveller rules this was based on our game play experience, based on what we knew about existing technologies, the science knowledge of our existing GMs (I wasn't the original GM that made the ruling on turreted weapons in our gaming group, however I adopted it over the rules as written, because it made sense). We extrapolating logical outcomes based on current design choices. People have been designing turreted dual and triple weapons systems for a couple hundred years now, and have tried multi-targeting systems using the different individual weapons within a single turret, with all of the multi-target designs being obsoleted in favor of a design that uses a single target & acquisition system to direct all of the weapons within a single turret to fire at the same target location. The reason weapons systems like these are not already used is, the complexity of the multi-purpose designs renders the weapons system statistically and significantly more likely to malfunction during operation. Mathematically this is a engineering expressed as reliability theory and practice, and is measured in mean-time-between-failures using systems modeling technique where the failure of every component within a system or sub-system is measured and then statistically summed. In plain English, the more complex a weapons system, the more disparate parts and components it has...the less reliable, and more prone to failure it is. Be my guest if your idea of a good Traveller game involves designing sub-standard weapons systems and using them in game, as well as making the game significantly more difficult to enjoy by enforcing a rule about rolling ridiculous amounts of dice to adjudicate combat. The reason I'm writing about this here though, is so that each group of players at the table playing Traveller can decide what works best for their game, and then proceed.
|
|
|
Post by creativehum on Mar 19, 2018 9:27:03 GMT -5
I edited my previous post to address some of gd's points from Book 5. He took the time to type out his explanations, and I felt they deserved at least one response pointing out the errors.
I was editing the post when gd replied to it. Sorry for any confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2018 9:45:28 GMT -5
I’m really enjoying the exchange of ideas on this thread. I’ve always been kind of a “make it your own” kind of referee, but I do also like knowing how others run the game.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 19, 2018 10:12:52 GMT -5
This is for everyone, from me, the original poster: FIRST: I love all the feedback on this thread. Please make sure not to get personal. This is about the exchange of ideas, and learning. I am happy that people are posting. SECOND: dragondaddy is forcing nothing on me. Most of my space combat was done in High Guard, so I am a Book 2 n00b. Thus interacting with someone who has played the old-style combat a lot, and who has talked with Marc Miller, and is a service veteran, is valuable and interesting. I have decided to continue with dragondaddy 's thread because I think it will be interesting and useful. I can clearly understand the reasoning that each turret gets one throw.THIRD: I am going to put my makofan battle continuation on hold until we finish with dragondaddy 's game. Then I think we will retcon back to my original post with each individual weapon firing separately so we can see the differences. I can also clearly understand the reasoning that the book says each individual weapon gets one throw. That way, people can watch, debate, and decide for themselves how they want to play it. Thank you everybody
|
|
|
Post by creativehum on Mar 19, 2018 10:14:38 GMT -5
I’m really enjoying the exchange of ideas on this thread. I’ve always been kind of a “make it your own” kind of referee, but I do also like knowing how others run the game. Oh, absolutely. First, every table should run any of these early games exactly as they want. That was a design philosophy baked into the hobby and the games. Second, I'm enjoying it too. It's making me make dig into the rules and find the nitty-gritty details I might otherwise gloss over. I assume Miller is a solid game designer, so I like having to think through the design decisions he made. (Whenever I've read something that confused me in Traveller Books 1, 2, or 3, invariably after looking it over I think, "Ah... that's why...." and move on.)
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Mar 19, 2018 10:50:45 GMT -5
Things are looking pretty grim here. Without the Sandcaster or missiles Norrington is outgunned 3-1 and it's only a matter of time (...probably an extremely short time), before she goes down to the combined firepower of both Corsairs. The real question is, can she keep the Corsairs occupied long enough for the Merchant Fleet to flee to safety, or summon help from Miscatoon.
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 19, 2018 12:09:56 GMT -5
I am also puzzled about computers
If you have a 5/9 computer, do you have to live with the 5 points loaded in the CPU for the entire turn, and can only shuffle the ones in the 9-point storage during the computer loading phase, or do they jump back and forth as needed (i.e. Anti-missile goes in and Launch goes out during the anti-missile phase)?
|
|
|
Post by creativehum on Mar 19, 2018 12:22:34 GMT -5
I am also puzzled about computers If you have a 5/9 computer, do you have to live with the 5 points loaded in the CPU for the entire turn, and can only shuffle the ones in the 9-point storage during the computer loading phase, or do they jump back and forth as needed (i.e. Anti-missile goes in and Launch goes out during the anti-missile phase)? You live with the programs you have in the CPU until you can shuffle in the loading phase. You need to anticipate what programs will serve you best turn to turn. You need to decide what strategy and tactics will best serve the ship and goals. Are you going to make a run for the starport and try to avoid damage as best you can? Engage offensively? Plot a course and get the hell out of the system before the enemy can engage? Here is a great post at the Ancient Far Future blog about how Book 2 ship combat is really about resource management, and not so much about tactics. Miller built the combat system with its own game elements, and they really don't work as a straight up board game/miniatures game. This also feeds into my earlier point that the Book 2 combat system feeds into and is dramatically part of an RPG game. The PCs might be frustrated in a particular combat because of lack of available programs -- and so decide they have to get enough credits to upgrade to a better model and make sure they don't experience that frustration again. The desire/need on the part of the PC crew to improve their CPU load becomes a long range goal built into the combat. And this RPG aspect feeds into the computers and damage, of course. Computers can take damage, the quality of the computer degrades with each hit, less programs can be used each turn. The questions becomes, "Okay, we're not sure we're an effective fighting machine anymore, now what do we do?" Or, "We will not dodge enough hits before we get to safety, now what do we do?" And so on. Each of these questions is great grist for RPG moments. It isn't about "How do I blow this guy up?" It is, " Given things are going south, what plan are we going to cook up now?"
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Mar 19, 2018 13:59:17 GMT -5
Right, as a long-time wargamer, it wasn't until I read your posts that I realized the thrust of small ship combat was built around the players. I think this is turning out to be a good exercise
|
|
|
Post by dragondaddy on Mar 19, 2018 14:22:01 GMT -5
I am also puzzled about computers If you have a 5/9 computer, do you have to live with the 5 points loaded in the CPU for the entire turn, and can only shuffle the ones in the 9-point storage during the computer loading phase, or do they jump back and forth as needed (i.e. Anti-missile goes in and Launch goes out during the anti-missile phase)? You live with the programs you have in the CPU until you can shuffle in the loading phase. You need to anticipate what programs will serve you best turn to turn. You need to decide what strategy and tactics will best serve the ship and goals. Are you going to make a run for the starport and try to avoid damage as best you can? Engage offensively? Plot a course and get the hell out of the system before the enemy can engage? ....Each of these questions is great grist for RPG moments. It isn't about "How do I blow this guy up?" It is, " Given things are going south, what plan are we going to cook up now?" Fully agree here. One of the really big draws especially in a player-vs.-player space combat scenario was choosing the right programs to run with a limited computer like the 3 or 3/bis, on the small to medium starships. This was an actual problem with early computers in that one could only run a limited number of apps or programs simultaneously. Now, of course our computers have the capability to run many more programs at one time, and the bottleneck has switched to whether or not the individual app has good coding and will malfunction, or fail at unexpected moments, due to unnecessary code bloat, or bad programming. In game this led to allowing players with the Programming skill to repair a faulty computer, or to modify a program on the fly to compensate for some other ships' system failure, or to temporarily boost or enhance the capability of a subsystem (like boosting the manuever drive to 120% for example). I also have, over the years allowed players (as well as in my games as GM) to write new programs, and have some interesting ECM ans sensor jamming suites as well as introduced some new stealth capabilities for my games as well, as adding custom designed survey, sensor, and scouting programs to enhance the basic information gathering capabilities of the Starship. I'll look these new programs up and then upload them this evening here after I get off of work. They added quite a bit of interesting play to my Traveller games over the years. This also provided additional roleplaying opportunities for the rest of the crew, when the gunners, pilots, & engineers were busy in combat!
|
|
|
Post by creativehum on Mar 19, 2018 17:14:10 GMT -5
Right, as a long-time wargamer, it wasn't until I read your posts that I realized the thrust of small ship combat was built around the players. I think this is turning out to be a good exercise I honestly didn't see all this until I took the time to examine all the "game pieces" in Traveller Books 1, 2, and 3. For years I thought the Book 2 spaceship combat system was some sort of miniature war-game stapled into an RPG. But it really isn't. It's cleverly designed combat system which ties into RPG play in the moment-by-moment RPG play and long-term campaign play. Also, in the other thread you asked about Sand Casters and Sand Clouds. Here is my take, for what it is is worth: Sand Casters and Sand Clouds are never really explained well in any of the CT material. The Special Supplement on Missiles doesn't touch on them at all, which is where I'd hoped they'd be explained. There are some clues in Mayday, but Mayday is a hex based board game, and several elements needed to streamline that game contradict rules and text found in Book 2... so it's helpful, but only so helpful.* Looking at Book 2, and inspired a bit by Mayday, here is what I came up with: In the Defender's DM Table in Book 2 (1981) we know that every "Obscuring sand (per 25mm)"** is a DM -3 for the attacker. This implies to me that sand cloud DMs can stack. It also seems to suggest that when a sand canister "explodes" it forms a kind of cloud on the map that is approximately 25mm in width that moves at the vector of the ship that fired it. It also seems to suggest that you don't make sand clouds denser by firing them into the same spot. They land at some point all the same line of fire from the ship. Now, this means the sand follows along the ship. And if laser fire passes through the cloud it receives a DM -3. And it receives a DM -3 for each cloud it passes through. Suddenly you have to draw a string from the firing vessel to the defending vessel and see if the laser fire is going to pass though the clouds. Now positioning matters in the game! Because now the attacker will want to move around and get to a position where he can fire without sand clouds in the way. And the defender will want to figure out the best positing to cover itself with defending sand. Now the stacked DMs might seem like a lot -- and they might end up making a hit all but impossible. But if you think about it, the clouds are protecting a portion of the ship... but often not all of it. Moreover, if a ship is launching sand canisters, it means that the ship has devoted at least one slot in a turret for sand and that it must use at least one CPU slot for the "Launch" program. This is a big investment of resources! It also means, if the ship is going to keep its cloud cover, it is committed to a vector for as long as possible. But if you launch some missiles at it, it will have to choose to be a sitting duck or try to outrace the missiles and lose the sand. Now a ship with lots of sandcasters is a ship that is going to try to survive on the run. It also means it is hoping it doesn't meet an enemy that can mix missiles and lasers in an attack. But building a defensive ship does make sense. A Type A Trader isn't going to have the muscle for a stand up fight straight out of the shipping yard. But it will have the capability of laying down sand (Launch) and maneuvering for -DMs (Evade). In this way the crew has made a decision about how it is going to handle itself till it can upgrade. Of course, a different crew might buy lasers instead. But you can see how different ships will be built to start off with different strategies and tactics. So my read of the rules is that obscuring sand does stack. _____ * In Mayday sand envelopes the ship and provides a DM -1. But there is no point in firing multiple sand canisters since there is no ability to layer the sand. Book 2 provides the ability with the notion of "per 25mm." ** Per 1/2" in the 1977 edition.
|
|