Re: Proposed Alternate Starship Combat in Traveller

Good (insert time of day) Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is one that's been sitting on my back burner for a bit.
Sorry this took me so long to get back to, I've been busy and there was a
lot here to read over and consider.

}From: bryan borich [email removed]
}Subject: (4095) Alternate Starship Combat System
}Variant starship combat rules. Fighters have more chance to knock out a
}battleship, but only if they are in large formations. Ships or fighters
}with armor-120 can now be damaged by weapons smaller than factor-T.

Hmm, according to the design tables in the Referee's Guide, this should NOT
be a problem until Tech Level 24.  (Max armor is TL *5)  So the max armor
available in the Imperium (That *I* wanna deal with) is Armor=75G at TL 15).
But then again, Shattered Ships of the Squabbling Imperium is chock full of
the things and other assorted errors.

}2. Damage Point Computation
}  The component hit points computed during design evaluation are not used
}in the current combat rules. This variant uses them.
}  First, we will compute the damage points each type of weapons does.
}  Turret mounted weapons do 10*UCP in damage. A bay weapon does 20*UCP in
}damage. Spinal mounts do 100*UCP in damage.
}  Nuclear and anti-matter do four times the precalculated damage. Example:
}a UCP-3 turret firing nuclear missiles does 120 points of damage ((3*10)*4).

I like it.  A way we can actually USE those damage point numbers we've been
patiently calculating and recording and never using.  Sounds like a good
idea.

}  Hull. To find out when the armor factor is reduced, divide the
}inoperative value by the armor factor. The Planet has an inoperative hull
}value of 67500 and an armor factor of 50. Each 1350 hits received reduce the
}armor factor by one.

I kind of like the idea that a weapon still causes damage even though it
may not penetrate the hull.  I heartily appaud this idea.  Assigning chassis
damage is a good idea.  Also burning it's armor off sounds plausible.

}Computer. I had trouble making damage plausible without being too
}devastating. Weapons with a UCP of 1-4 give "Computer-1", UCP of 5-9 gives
}"Computer-2", and UCP-A gives "Computer-3." On exceptional success reduce the
}computer factor by an additional one.

Hmm, my reading of the damage tables must be slightly different from yours.
I understood that Computer-1 would knock one computer off line, Computer-2
takes 2, and so on.  In High Guard we knocked the computer level down.  So
what gives?

}7. Optional Sensor Rules
}  Make all sensor tasks one level less difficult if the target is in an
}adjacent hex.
}Make active sensor tasks one level more difficult:
}o if the target is within a gas giant,
}o when attempted through a hex where a nuclear missile has exploded.
}o if target uses jamming.
}Neutrino detection:
}o If target's EMLevel is faint, give a -1 DM to neutrino scans.
}o If target's EMLevel is strong, give a +1 DM to neutrino scans.

Don't forget background neutrinos.  (The sun... high population planets
where everybody owns a fusion powered air/raft... etc.)

}Densitometer detection:
}o If target is small, give a -1 DM to densitometer scans.
}o If target is large, give a +1 DM to densitometer scans.
}o Increase detection task difficulty by one level if detection is
}attempted through a planet or moon with size 5+ or through a planetoid belt.

All the above sound like good ideas.  However the range and detection of
sensors needs work.  As far as I can see, it is just about impossible to
detect a ship at the rated range of the sensors.  Now I can understand that
a sensor could detect other ships out to far orbit range, but even with a
model 9 computer and a Far orbit range sensor, you just can't detect them
that far.  So what does a 'Far Orbit' sensor detect?  What does an
'Interstellar' sensor detect?  If the answer is nothing, why then are they
called that?

You see, my good old astigmatic Mark I eyeball is a passive sensor that can
detect objects at GALACTIC ranges.  *Without* my glasses.  But it hardly
can distinguish a ship at ranges of more than a few tens of kilometers.

Therefore, the range bands of sensors need clarification.

}Time and distance. I plan to scale down the time and distance scale in
}starship combat from 20 minutes/25000km to 4 minutes/5000km. For longer combat
}turns, more damage must be given for each hit.

Bad Idea.  In my experience, opposing ships open fire as soon as they are
within range.  (Far orbit)  With 4 minute turns and 5000 km hexes how big
a board are you gonna have to plot the movement on?  Far orbit range would
leave you with 100 hexes to worry about.  It gets rediculous!  If each hex
is a centimeter, your map needs to be a meter across.  In my experince,
combat lasts several turns say 10?  In forty minutes, ships will not close
significantly from Far Orbit ranges.  By the time they got within close range
(to use fusion guns and where meson gun performance goes up) They will be
lifeless drifting rocks burned to bits by laser batteries and missiles.

}  Movement: I am inclined to make some changes in the movement rules.
}  First, I want to make heading changes somewhat more difficult. As in
}Interceptor or Leviathan, it costs thrust points to change heading. What I
}want to do is require a certain number of hexes travelled at a given velocity
}before allowing a one hex side course change. How many hexes to travel may
}depend on both maneuver gee and/or agility. Using this rule would make it
}appropriate to limit the arc of the spinal mount to forward.

Hold it right there!  Are you telling me that a ship with (at the very least)
1 G thrust to mass ratio CAN'T bring it's nose to bear on target EVEN in
the FOUR MINUTE time intervals you suggest?  No WAY!  If a ship can not turn
faster than that, then agility would have no hope of bringing any correction
help in avoiding fire.

And given the fact that they are (and should remain) 20 minute turn intervals,
I have some trouble seeing any firing arc restrictions.  Even the ones we
currently use!

What you are suggesting sounds vaguely reminiscent of the fact that aircraft
cannot instantly bring their nose to bear on target as they approach higher
and higher speeds.  In a vaccum this will not be a problem:  No wings.

Changing VECTORS is a totally different story.  You can't suddenly switch
your heading by 180 degrees without applying your maneuver drive.  ie you
can't be moving 12 hexes per turn in one direction and in the next turn
be heading in the opposite direction at the same speed.  (unless you have
a Maneuver drive with 24G's behind it!)

(I haven't read MEgaTrav combat very well, PLEASE don't tell me you can do
that with their rules...  I still go by the Mayday movement rules)

I don't know about Leviathan or Interceptor or the type of game they are
trying to create.  But this sounds like you are trying to get the feel of
a more World War I & II type of air combat:  Dogfighting.  Well, with the
ranges and weapons involved, I'm afraid it will be more akin to 2 F-14
Tomcats detecting each other *Well* beyond visual range and fireing Pheonix
missiles at each other at something like a hundred nautical miles.

}DAMAGE RESULTS
}Fuel Tank. I'm going to change the "fuel tank shattered" to "fuel leak".
}A certain amount of fuel will be lost per turn. Subsequent hits will make the
}leak more severe.

In a 20 minute turn, a fuel tank that is open to space will evacuate itself.
Even a slow leak.  I have trouble seeing it not empty itself even in the
four minute intervals you suggest.  If there is a leak, that fuel in that
compartment will be lost immediately.  It won't bleed off slowly unless it is
a tiny leak.  A self sealing tank should be well able to handle any such tiny
leaks.

}Hull Inoperative. There is no effect in the standard rules (or my
}variant) for an inoperative hull, when that damage level is reached. My
}suggestions are:
}y restrict craft to 1G
}y prohibit atmosphere entry
}y hull is breached

All these sound good.

}y stress severely limits heading changes

No.  If the structure is sound enough to take 1G acceleration, it can
certainly stand rotational stresses which would be negligible in a four
minute combat turn and zero in a 20 minute one.

}y Agility drops to zero

How so if it can still push 1G?

}y may not fire spinal mount

Hmmm.  I don' know.  At the Inoperative position, the hull has not collapsed
yet, that indicates to me that the spine of the ship is still intact.

}y Craft may not be recovered. They may be launched.

That doesn't make sence.  If there is an open path for ships to leave, then
there exists a path for them to enter.  I think you are confusing slow
relative velocity docking maneuvers with carrier deck operations.  Carrier
deck operations are of necessity held at high speeds to prevent aircraft
from stalling.  In vaccum it is absolutely impossible for spacecraft to stall.
(Shades of Battlestar Galactica  :-P)

}y Rapid Launch Facilities are inoperative.

I dunno, the spine is still intact.  Why would this happen?
Remember:  rapid launch does not mean carrier steam catapults.

}y Fuel leak.

Sounds good.

Scott "2G" Kellogg

On a completely different subject,
Mr. Borich, I'm not going to respond to your attack concerning flames.
I'm sure some of our more irrascable members will do that.  I will however
SUGGEST that in future the way to extinguish flames is with water, not flame.

And if you are interested in solutions to particular problems with Trav and
MegaTrav, I would point you to the archives to find the numerous discussions
on problems percieved and solutions proposed.  If you have any particular
problems in mind, I suggest you address them yourself so that discussion may
ensue.  I think you will find this preferable rather than waiting for others
to bring them up if you find the wait so disturbing.

Sincerely,
Scott S. Kellogg