GT ISW Ship Design System [FAQ and Problems]

[Shrale]

Originally Posted by nik1979

If the targeting system fails, it hits the EW instead. If succeeds despite the EW, the best is that the EW still be expended but reduces the margin of success. Offesive and Defensive ECM, one has legs but only has enough energy for one burst use the other doesnt have legs but could do its job much longer (or through microwave energy transmission)

I thought GTp166 used the "detection plus" method, where "plus" is

1. detection
2. detection + recognition
3. detection + identification

I'm guessing 1 & 2 above mean the ship may not know there's an EW decoy
out there; #3 gives you a clear idea of what you're up against.

Using AESA and PESA modes adds a bit of a bonus into the mix.

Has that changed in ISW ?

In other words rather than blindly saying since you screwed up targeting
you fire at the decoy, you'd have to have the sensor operator first
tell that there are 6 targets out there and 5 are drones and 1 is an opposing
starship (or whatever numbers are present).

Or is your way easier ?

>

[nik1979]

the detection plus method is the same in ISW, but its not implicitly mentioned to be a GM roll (since the player can deduce from their own roll what they could not or can be seeing).

My problem with Spoofing method is that the no. of drones are given away. My ideal is that the no. of drones should be unknown (with a critical success giving away the presence of EW).

If they cant count the drone the options for the drone users to use other sneaky methods are not open. Methods like running silent, misdirection, and other shell game tactics.

AESA and PESA are simplified as A Scan Rating in Hexes distance
the difference with passive and active is that passive is less capable at a -6.
Despite the software rules in ISW it would be nice if it could be expounded.
If they can also update the ship board computer complexity to match UT
and allow for software quality bonuses.

Also the penalties for multi-tasking is a bit inconsistent. A small bridge is worse than a Large cockpit when it comes to multi-tasking. Shouldn't it just simply be progressively better with Quality bonus affecting the multi tasking penalty of certain tasks.

Also there are provisions for redundant control stations and scanners but no rules governing such advantages. A war ship can easily spare space for an additional command bridge or a cautious merchant can also spare the space to upgrade to such. What are the bonus of having certain system precisely dedicated or with extra resources to do their job.

UT has rules for disguised and deceptive compartments. It would be nice to consolidate some of the rules regarding that.

Also, rules for pop-up turrets, i assume light turrets only and they take up space?

If these other little rules would be fixed and a bunch of ships made and altered using them would be great for vehicles based campaigns.

[Shrale]

Originally Posted by nik1979

the detection plus method is the same in ISW, but its not implicitly mentioned to be a GM roll (since the player can deduce from their own roll what they could not or can be seeing).

My problem with Spoofing method is that the no. of drones are given away. My ideal is that the no. of drones should be unknown (with a critical success giving away the presence of EW).

Which is why the GM should make the rolls (and make more than he really needs) :)

Telling the players: "Okay make 6 rolls..." is giving too much away.

Rolling copious amounts of dice behind the scenes (or via a computer
program) is much nicer and keeps the mystery up about whether those
are ships or just fuzzy contacts.

I don't think it's possible to detect comm in space (meaning tight beam like
laser comm and such) but it might be possible, esp once you know something's out there. The sensor rules in GT will probably explain that in
some form.

>

[Mgellis]

Originally Posted by nik1979

Thanks Mark,
hehehe, your making it hard to ignore that subscription. I've placed my order at e23 now.
Any plans of making Mass Combat Stats for Traveller Ships?

The change from 200mm actually doesn't change my calculations that much. After accumulating all this data and having a naval doctrine down pat, I'm surprised there was no CCG designed after that. Once you have the established doctrines and technological paths set, you can pretty much design an Abstract fleet action and naval Strategy Card Game by it.

The CCG could possibly accommodate both fleet doctrines of Lost Fleet and Honorverse.

Asset Cards for Ships, Captains, Elite Fighter Squadrons, Bases, Shipyards, and Locations.
Action Cards for Special Fleet Maneuvers (Which need certain requirements), EW or ECM actions and drones, special attacks, traps, mines/pods, ambushes, random chance, etc.
Faction Cards. Grants a special advantage to the player. Like bonuses over generic ship stats (the difference between faction Y and W EW, Accel, Attack Range, or special maneuvers)
and with 3d6 resolutions for some elements (target number resolution so that its upward progression).

I'm trying to build some default ship stats based on ISW's

BTW, I've noticed ramming is not that hard given the factors of ship size and proximity explosions.
Ramming a ship like the Indomitable with size +13 offsets much of the +15 contested skill advantage.
If screening ships are able to pin point an enemy ship (augmenting the effective detection range of the launching ship to almost double): Scan-16(model-0) + Scan-24(model-9) can allow a missile to travel an 8 (w/c requires 9 rounds to max out accel) space vector towards a targeted ship.
I've begging to notice the usefulness of "ships of the wall". Basically dreadnaughts with a 6 point defense laser slots per heavy turret or up to about 396 point defense slots.


This means that Point Defense (PD) will be occurring at the ship's hex as part of the PD phase. Screening ships, will have a -4 (at the safest range of 12, or less at 2), +2 (accell), +13 (size) vs the repulsor-ed ship of +15 and other bonuses depending on the Penetration Aids for the Missiles or the EW/ECM abilities of the warship.

High Explosive Proximity Kill Missiles like Nukes, makes the job easier for the missiles.

I think you will enjoy JTAS. At $20, it's a great deal. Even if you don't like some of the articles, I'm sure you will get $20 worth and more over two years.

I have Mass Combat and it looks interesting, but I haven't played around with it too much. Right now, I'm finishing up some JTAS articles and playing around with ideas for new ones. I've got a few "Ships of the Third Imperium" article ideas that I'll probably flesh out in the next few months. More in my master plan to publish a GURPS Traveller: Third Imperium for 4e GURPS book as a large series of JTAS articles. :)

The 3e GT missiles were actually 250 mm. and 500 mm., but when I compared them to warheads in 4e Ultra-Tech, etc., 200 mm. made more sense. And it is easier to figure things out.

I've tried very hard to stay close to canon, but I also think that modifying Traveller for 4e GURPS is a great opportunity to streamline things, reinvent things that were clunky or odd, etc.

I'm not really that into CCGs, but I like your ideas. There might be licensing issues with Traveller, but maybe SJG will develop a Spaceships CCG.

As far as ramming goes...I'm not sure the Third Imperium would do this, but I wouldn't be surprised if some space navies relied on robot fighters as "I don't care how much armor you have" missiles. :) No warhead, just a cockpit, a computer with NAI software, some sensors, and lots of maneuver drive. Crank that baby up to maximum speed and kamikaze in. A hundred of those things would cost a pretty penny, but they would probably overwhelm a dreadnought's defenses and a dreadnought costs a lot more, so the guys with the big robot missiles win. :)

I think nukes (clean fusion weapons that can't be turned off by dampers) would serve as the "equalizer" in naval combat and makes the game more interesting. Dreadnoughts will usually beat little ships, even those armed with nukes, but at the little ships will have a chance. And that makes it interesting.

Mark

[nik1979]

Considering to Bridge UT, HT and ISW

Couldn't ship costs follow the UT/HT x2 cost options? The escalating cost of +2 HT for x4 is a too big. Considering warship or frontier merchants who are required to operating far from possible proper support services, costs of X4 for a +2 HT seems to me inconsistent. Considering the huge cost jump, couldn't there be better examples of why it is such a valuable advantage that it justifies x4 cost? Because if its not that justifiable and from how I've noticed how my group looks at it then that rule should be reconisidered.

In my examination and tinkering, the Cheap Option in UT/HT is much better. Since Cheap can increase the mass, it will make a ship certainly slower. Example: Cheap Hero Class will have an Accel of 1.2 vs 1.5. Since Cheap also has the fragile option (-2 HT) the option for reliable trade off for price is still available.

Separating the x2 cost categories to Rugged and Expensive is also viable. The Rugged modifier will slow a ship down (+20% mass; Ex. Rugged Hero Class Accel 1.4), probably not doubling the DR (or just giving a +10% DR instead), increasing the HT by 2. Mixing Rugged but Cheap (heavy and not the fragile) option creates a can have x1.8 Mass and makes for a slow but affordable Frontier Operating Ship (Hero Class at Accel 1.2).

The expensive option, which really isn't that ideal for ships that are supposed to work in rugged conditions, would be great with a yacht (Accel 2.0 to 2.5), interplanetary shuttle (accel 1.3 to 1.5).

On Accel, isnt a difference between two accel, ex. Accel 1 and 6, merit a bonus far greater than half the difference? In the duration of a combat round, i just find the bonus disproportionate to my experience in flight simulations and how TDMs are scaled.

Are there inertia dampers in ships? Because, I'm wondering at the description of repulsors and how much they are related to inertia dampers.