Space Combat Systems

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

I think I would just have the defender roll all their PD guns (well, all of the ones that can shoot at that missile swarm), knock out one missile per hit (or per number of hits needed), and treat a missile swarm somewhat like a single object; ie., "How many turrets do you want to designate to each swarm?"

That's something at least one of the playtesters apparently believed was the rules as intended - but it's very clearly not the rules as written. (Except when the missile 'swarm' is a salvo fired as a single attack, at which point it is exactly the rules as written, but also a terrible mistake has been made on the missile-shooting side.)

That will make PD somewhat more efficient, since it doesn't 'waste' excess hits scored against one individual missile. By how much depends in a chaotic sort of way on how the effective skills and such line up on both sides.

A note for consideration: it is possible that there may be more than one distinct missile swarm to address at a given time - for instance, there might be multiple sizes of missiles being launched, or missiles aimed at different parts of your ship. So you do need a step somewhere there for allocating defensive fire among multiple pools of targets even if you pool all functionally interchangeable missiles.

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

It sounds, from your thread, that PD is indeed useful enough to bother including, which is good. :)

I don't recommend assuming that whatever analysis I did back then applies to your own context. You don't know (and neither do I) exactly what assumptions I was making - but they certainly aren't exactly the same as the ones you are making!

Run some numbers for the way you would use the rules.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That's something at least one of the playtesters apparently believed was the rules as intended - but it's very clearly not the rules as written. (Except when the missile 'swarm' is a salvo fired as a single attack, at which point it is exactly the rules as written, but also a terrible mistake has been made on the missile-shooting side.)

That will make PD somewhat more efficient, since it doesn't 'waste' excess hits scored against one individual missile. By how much depends in a chaotic sort of way on how the effective skills and such line up on both sides.

A note for consideration: it is possible that there may be more than one distinct missile swarm to address at a given time - for instance, there might be multiple sizes of missiles being launched, or missiles aimed at different parts of your ship. So you do need a step somewhere there for allocating defensive fire among multiple pools of targets even if you pool all functionally interchangeable missiles.

I don't recommend assuming that whatever analysis I did back then applies to your own context. You don't know (and neither do I) exactly what assumptions I was making - but they certainly aren't exactly the same as the ones you are making!

Run some numbers for the way you would use the rules.

...I am both dreading, and looking forward to, reading Spaceships.

Edit: Or re-reading, I should say. I did give it a skim when I first got it.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That's something at least one of the playtesters apparently believed was the rules as intended -.

The author acted as if it were too.

To put it simply, during all of the rounds of the playtest I acted as if firing large numbers of identical weapons (regardless of being on offense or defense) as it the _normal_ rules for Gurps Rapid Fire were to be followed. David Pulver never corrected me if that was wrong though he did catch things like some errata on the original KE weapons table damage and other playtest-y things.

I still believe that following the Rapid Fire rules is the Gurps way to handle these things. As long as you handle offense and defense the same way it all comes out in the wash. If you allowed every one of the 30 lasers in a Tertiary battery to be rolled for indivdually when the missiles were rolled en masse there might be some inbalance but you're not going to roll 30 times, are you?

Utzgoroth has one line of text that apparently causes him to believe that you must roll individually for every weapon. Even if that line does say what he believes it does I think that this is the mistake. If it looks like the rules tell you to do something ridiculous use common sense about it.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The author acted as if it were too.

To put it simply, during all of the rounds of the playtest I acted as if firing large numbers of identical weapons (regardless of being on offense or defense) as it the _normal_ rules for Gurps Rapid Fire were to be followed. David Pulver never corrected me if that was wrong though he did catch things like some errata on the original KE weapons table damage and other playtest-y things.

I still believe that following the Rapid Fire rules is the Gurps way to handle these things. As long as you handle offense and defense the same way it all comes out in the wash. If you allowed every one of the 30 lasers in a Tertiary battery to be rolled for indivdually when the missiles were rolled en masse there might be some inbalance but you're not going to roll 30 times, are you?

Utzgoroth has one line of text that apparently causes him to believe that you must roll individually for every weapon. Even if that line does say what he believes it does I think that this is the mistake. If it looks like the rules tell you to do something ridiculous use common sense about it.

Can you provide any citation for the claim that aggregating a bunch of separate attacks into one rapid fire attack is in fact "normal" for GURPS?

It's an occasionally called-upon shortcut when somebody asks how to model a line infantry volley or a naval broadside. But I'm not sure if that's even in the published corpus.

(None of this has anything to do with normal vs. abnormal rapid fire rules. Spaceships uses perfectly normal rapid fire rules for the most part, though there are a few twists like proximity detonated missiles.)

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

I have encountered a couple of syntax errors:

pg 22, Reaction Engine, Fission: "Each fuel tank of hydrogen gives a delta- V of 0.3 mps (TL7-8) or 0.45 mps (TL8)." Added bolding is mine.

pg 23, Reaction Engine, Total Conversion, and Antimatter: While I would assume they are meant to go in the rear section, this is not listed.

Other than that, an interesting read. To assist in comprehension of the material, I'm building a TL9, SM+11 planetary defence battleship as I go. About 3 months, 18 days at full burn on the Earth-Mars circuit puts the solar system into the Age of Sail style travel times.

If I could fit another long-duration fuel tank on there, that would help a lot; being able to make the Earth-Mars circuit in 1 month, 24 days turns the Earth-Mars Alliance from a loose "Yeah, we'll help if we can.", into "We can probably help." But, doubling its combat speed would also have definite utility.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

pg 23, Reaction Engine, Total Conversion, and Antimatter: While I would assume they are meant to go in the rear section, this is not listed.

I believe it is a requirement for all reaction drives to go in the rear.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I believe it is a requirement for all reaction drives to go in the rear.

If so, that leaves the question of why some reaction drives list [rear] and only one does not.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Say, it isn't that bad!

If so, that leaves the question of why some reaction drives list [rear] and only one does not.

Probably just a small editing mistake. A minor one if so.

[Say, it isn't that bad!]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Probably just a small editing mistake. A minor one if so.

...Yes, I often find that people make a large fuss when I report a minor error.

Edit: While I admit that was rather snarky, it was my honest reaction. Perhaps unwarranted.