Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2018, 12:02 AM   #41
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Well, I used all of the Spaceship rules at different times.

I first went into missile salvos v. point defense during the playtest for Spaceships 1. This obviously became very important when the one shot kill quality of kinetic weapons at very high velocities became evident.

A general principle that one tertiary battery given over to point defense tended to cancel out one missile battery.
When I ask what rules you used, I mean how did you actually resolve this? Because there are definitely some differences in opinion on what the Spaceships rules are, and even more so how you should employ them. Are you rolling the entire missile battery as one attack, or rolling one attack per missile? You can do either by the book, if you've got enough gunners. What about the point defense battery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Even older battles that appear longer and more epic only seem that way because we tend to count shots fired rather than those that hit and almost all shells fired miss. One shell from Bismarck sank the Hood. One shell from the Rodney effectively killed Bismarck.
Having read about WWI naval battles...no, those often involved legitimately substantial numbers of hits (and didn't necessarily kill the recipient ship either).

Abysmally low hit rates, sure. Sub-percentile at least some of the time. But many ships took solidly 2-digit hit counts in battles.

I'm pretty sure age of sail ships really could and did get hammered by a lot of hits, but I don't have statistics on that.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 01:38 AM   #42
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Even older battles that appear longer and more epic only seem that way because we tend to count shots fired rather than those that hit and almost all shells fired miss. One shell from Bismarck sank the Hood. One shell from the Rodney effectively killed Bismarck.
On the other hand,three days earlier three shells hits from the Prince of Wales did not kill Bismarck. Neither did a torpedo hit from one of HMS Victorious' torpedo-bombers on the 25th.

In the final battle on the 27th, four British ships fired 2,800 shells at Bismarck and scored 400 hits. Then they sank it with two torpedo hits.
__________________
copyright Brett Evill
FLAT BLACK discussion group at tekeli.li
On-line texts at flatblack.wikidot.com
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 07:52 AM   #43
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth View Post
When I ask what rules you used, I mean how did you actually resolve this? Because there are definitely some differences in opinion on what the Spaceships rules are, and even more so how you should employ them. Are you rolling the entire missile battery as one attack, or rolling one attack per missile? You can do either by the book, if you've got enough gunners. What about the point defense battery?
.
Attacks were rolled as a volley both for the attacking missiles and the defending PD. I believe this to be the norm for 4th ed and the author of Spaceships and the co-author of 4e did not correct my procedure(though he did catch other problems in my detailed reports). It appeared to be what was used by everyone else as well.

I just don't see this "roll every missile" imperative. It's more simulationist but 4e has gone against simulationism in ranged combat in general and Spaceships in particular is a fast and simple combat system.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 08:50 AM   #44
Michael Thayne
 
Michael Thayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Then Spaceships 3 and 4 were tested together and it was with the mapped rules I did the space station attack. I used a Gibraltar station in defense and a Nova carrier with a bay full of TL8 ASATs.

The Novas stated out at Mars which is how they built up that 70 mile per second velocity. What I remember was that this came to 100 ASATs. There may have been multiple Novas to get that number.

Each ASAT could fire 3 missiles so the total number of incoming targets was 400 and this was too many to counter. Just one of the missiles gave you a _hard_ kill on the SM+14 asteroid station too.
This is a good story. It's pretty much why I fret so much about missile defense.

Back on the possibility of using square-root based damage and HP to encourage large ships, after thinking about it more, I think the big challenge is armor. If you don't boost armor, you strip big ships of one of their original advantages. Not quite sure how to do it, though.
Michael Thayne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 09:42 AM   #45
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agemegos View Post
In the final battle on the 27th, four British ships fired 2,800 shells at Bismarck and scored 400 hits. Then they sank it with two torpedo hits.
Apparently, King George V's 14 inch shells were largely ineffective against Bismarck's armor, so a lot of those hits were effectively meaningless. I've heard it claimed that the RN so wanted to be sure they killed it, they closed to point blank range. While that gave them a lot of hits, most of them were high, disabling things like gun direction and turrets (and most likely killing the bulk of the senior officers early on) but not having as great an effect on the seaworthiness as would ordinarily be expected.
__________________
RyanW
England, for such a small country, has far more rivers than can be easily kept track of. The English have compensated for this by naming all of them Avon.

Last edited by RyanW; 04-16-2018 at 09:45 AM.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 10:28 AM   #46
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Attacks were rolled as a volley both for the attacking missiles and the defending PD. I believe this to be the norm for 4th ed and the author of Spaceships and the co-author of 4e did not correct my procedure(though he did catch other problems in my detailed reports). It appeared to be what was used by everyone else as well.

I just don't see this "roll every missile" imperative. It's more simulationist but 4e has gone against simulationism in ranged combat in general and Spaceships in particular is a fast and simple combat system.
I'm not sure I'd call it an imperative, exactly...but it is permitted by the rules as written, if the attacker has the right features. And it increases performance immensely. (It's also actually an imperative per the text if your battery is turrets - the option to fire an entire battery as one attack is strictly for fixed batteries.)

While I don't know if I could respect it because I have little patience with the Rapid Fire rules being used in places where they're very non-simulationist, I do believe Spaceships might work better if it actually was written to enforce the spirit that you brought to the rules. But it's not written that way, and the way it is written either side of that missile/PD exchange gains a tremendous advantage by choosing to use their weapons otherwise.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 11:22 AM   #47
Michael Thayne
 
Michael Thayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

The first thing I can think of to offset the increase in beam weapon power under "the square root of destruction" is give an SM-based multiplier to DR. Something like this progression:

SM+4: x1.5
SM+5: x2
SM+6: x2.5
SM+7: x3
SM+8: x3.5
SM+9: x4
SM+10: x5
SM+11: x6
SM+12: x7
SM+13: x9
SM+14: x11
SM+15: x13

This is more or less consistent with how the Square Root of Destruction rules increase the damage output of major batteries. I'm a little worried that for some paradigms it might make ships too tough, but not sure what that paradigm is.
Michael Thayne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 12:24 PM   #48
Michael Thayne
 
Michael Thayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

Proposed square-root based damage progression for conventional warheads:

2cm: 1d+2
2.5cm: 2d
3cm: 2d+2
3.5cm: 3d
4cm: 3d+2
5cm: 5d
6cm: 6d
7cm: 7d
8cm: 8d
10cm: 11d
12cm: 3dx5
14cm: 6dx3
16cm: 6dx4
20cm: 6dx6
24cm: 6dx8
28cm: 6dx11
32cm: 6dx16
40cm: 6dx22
48cm: 6dx28
56cm: 6dx32
64cm: 6dx44
80cm: 6dx60
96cm: 6dx80
112cm: 6dx100
Michael Thayne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 02:57 PM   #49
Agemegos
 
Agemegos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanW View Post
Apparently, King George V's 14 inch shells were largely ineffective against Bismarck's armor, so a lot of those hits were effectively meaningless. I've heard it claimed that the RN so wanted to be sure they killed it, they closed to point blank range. While that gave them a lot of hits, most of them were high, disabling things like gun direction and turrets (and most likely killing the bulk of the senior officers early on) but not having as great an effect on the seaworthiness as would ordinarily be expected.
I know there's a reason that Bismarck survived three shell hits from Rodney on the 24th, a torpedo hit and at least one shell hit on the 25th, and four hunred shell hits on the 27th, before being sunk by two torpedos, or whatever the hellish battering it took was. I'm just trying to give context to the statement that it was "effectively killed by one shell".
__________________
copyright Brett Evill
FLAT BLACK discussion group at tekeli.li
On-line texts at flatblack.wikidot.com
Agemegos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2018, 03:16 PM   #50
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: [Spaceships] Missile shield vs. ramming: two questions

It probably worse better with general GURPS mechanics to use expanded wound size modifiers. I came up with mine here and several other people have had nearly identical schemes.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
combat, spaceships

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.