Re: (4312) Alternate Starship combat v2

bryan borich [email removed] forwards the following:
> Subject: (4312) Alternate Starship combat v2
> From: Roger Myhre
>       Odvar Solbergsvei 136
>       0973 Oslo 9
>       Norway
>
> In general these rules are intended to make smaller craft able to
> battle a larger craft. What the use is a SDB if it can't make a dent in
> an invading force? Without this ability SDB's are reduced to pirate and
> smuggling control.

You know, I still have a slight problem with this.  My gut feel is that,
given the current design rules, unarmored or lightly armored vessels will
be favored over 'bricks', with meson guns being the decisive armament.  _If_
that is true, then SDBs will have something to do because it won't be cost
effective to provide complete protection against them.

> 1. Damage:
> In the construction rules you calculate hitpoints to the different
> components in a starship, but they are not used in the combat rules. In
> this set of rules we are going to use hitpoints, but not the hitpoints
> calculated from the rules in Referee's Manual.

)-:  I'd like to see those numbers used for consistency's sake.  In my personal
opinion, the current rules are at a 'bad' level of abstraction.  I'd be willing
to go in either direction--less detail ala High Guard, or more detail in some
attempt to provide compatibility from vehicles on up.

> Power: Damage in the old system was counted in tens of percent. In this
> system it is changed a bit. The damage is divided into hitpoints per
> 10% of operating powerplant
> For each 10% loss of power, reduce agility with two, until it drops to
> zero.
> When 50% of power is lost, spinal mount cannot fire.
> When 60% are lost, the ship may either chose to use maneuver drive or
> energy weapons in a combat round turn, but not both.
> When 70% are lost, screens are are inoperative, except sandcasters.
> Maneuver is reduced to zero.
> When 80% are lost, grav plates and inertial compensators is powerless.
> No weapons may fire.
> When 90% are lost, life support fails to work properly.

This is a pretty crude approximation.  I could send you a bundle of combat
and non-combat starship designs to give you a database to develop a "realistic"
profile from.

> So a factor-9
> radiation hit against the crew kills 2 crew segments.

Radiation death for the crew should possibly be slow acting, and if we liked
some of the medical expansion stuff from TD, isn't is reversible damage?

> 7. Fuel leak:
> Clay Bush "Scott Olson (and others before him) have pointed to "Fuel
> Tanks Shattered" result as being an effective kill. Its frequency
> affects both combat and post battle repair and salvage. Should it be
> made less likely? Tied to hull damage?"

I don't suppose it would be useful enough to the overall game to add in a
fuel compartmentalization factor in the design stage?  More compartments=
more mass=more cost=less fuel lost per puncture...Given the assumption that
such compartmentalization _does_ now exist and that we just ignore it for the
sake of simplicity, we should also make the chance of actual loss of fuel from
a hit proportional to the amount of fuel currently being carried. (A d10 based
saving thow would probably be acceptable, especially in TNE when they switch
over to a d20 based game system)
> 12. Firing arcs.
> Originally there is no firing arc defined by the rules, except for the
> limit of weapons who can bear at a single target. I would like to
> introduce a simple rule to change this a bit.Spinal mounts may only
> fire in the hex side arc of the crafts direction of travel. Spinal
> mounts may not fire at fighters.If all bearing batteries fires at a
> target in one hex side arc, none of the other batteries of this weapon
> may not fire at any other target in the same arc.

I see no indication of a time/distance scale in this draft.  If we remain with
20 minute turns, which seems desirable to me (gutting the technology and
having combat at a few hundred kms seems like a bad idea), then a ship should
be able to rotate (Without changing its vector!!!) to any heading for firing
purposes.  Since I like to keep Traveller a little more realistic than the
average "WWII in Space" game, I think that it is important to maintain the
notion of vector velocity with the resulting differentiation between the
direction of travel and where the nose is pointing.

> 13. Boarding, the quick and dirty way.

Long segment of rules for a very low probability event.  Simpler boarding
rules: A ship with no maneuver capability and no weapons may be boarded
and captured by a force able to field a 2:1 superiority in troop strength...


Thanks to Bryan for porting this over for us.  Hope our comments aren't
discouraging Roger too much.

Rob Dean