Space Dogfights - TROS mechanic (split)

[Harlequin]

I'm starting a fresh thread here because there's some really interesting worldbuilding going on in the original Space Dogfights thread and I'd like to somewhat divorce the mechanical discussion from this.

This is half development and half actual play; James Brown and I got together last night, picked some numbers out of the air for Activation Costs and starfighter stats, and tried to blow each other up in an X-Wing vs. TIE scenario.  And the answer was a pretty positive one - it retains a lot of the abstraction/detail/verisimilitude mix I'm used to from TROS, ported over to this new environment.  I think there's real promise here.

Our construction went as follows:

Scenario: This is part of a big battle, a couple of wings of X-Wings engaging a bunch of TIE fighters near the TIEs' supporting Star Destroyer.  Also present in the environment was a small asteroid field.  The fight we ran would be (as TROS suggests) the one-on-one involving the PC and his opponent, in this case X-Wing Pilot (Combat pool 11) vs. TIE Fighter (Combat pool 10).  The threat of the nearby Star Destroyer balances things out.

X-Wing stats used: ATN (Attack TN) 7, MTN (Maneuverability TN) 6, STN (Speed TN) 6.  Damage +2, Shields +2.

TIE stats: ATN 8, MTN 4, STN 6.  Damage +1, Shields 0.

Maneuvers are listed below.  Stat block gives Activation Cost, TN used, and short notes.

Maneuvers available:
Disengaged State
Active Maneuvers
Snipe (2/ATN) - Long-range fire.  Inflicts damage of MOS plus your damage rating, minus his shields.
Firing Pass (0/MTN) - Begins a firing pass.  If you win, next Exchange will consist of a Fire and Evade for both players; MOS on this roll is the Activation Cost of your opponent's shot if he fires during this pass, your Activation Cost will be zero.
(Fire and Evade (0*/ATN and 0/MTN) - Only available after a successful Firing Pass or Roll and Close.  Both players declare their Fire pool first and then allocate to the Evade.  Total successes from each side's rolls are used to determine next Initiative.)
Tail (1/MTN) - Gets you on his tail; opponent loses the MOS in dice on his next exchange.
Relocate (1/STN) - Moves you into or out of a risk zone.  Risk factor (see below) increases or decreases by MOS.  Reactive player can only resist with Burn maneuver, but need not resist.
Reactive Maneuvers
Evade (0/MTN) - Basic avoidance of the above actions.
Full Evade (0/TN 4) - Yields initiative to other fighter regardless of successes.
Burn (1/STN) - Uses speed to avoid engagement instead of maneuvering.  Also moves you into/out of a dangerous area, by one Risk factor per two net successes.
Roll And Close (2*/MTN) - As Firing Pass, if this maneuver wins then next exchange is a mutual Fire and Evade.  Your MOS is his Activation Cost to fire.  Activation cost of this maneuver is zero in response to a Firing Pass (you agree with his decision to close).

"Tail" State
Active Maneuvers
Lock On (0/ATN) - MOS becomes bonus dice on a Fire or Lock On action, if taken next exchange.
Fire (0/ATN) - Inflicts damage of MOS plus your damage rating, minus his shields.
Relocate (0/STN) - As above, but note that this loses you your Tail state.  (On the other hand, the "Dog" has a hard time following you with Burn, as it has a high Act. Cost for him.)
Harry (2/MTN) - Tries to push the dogfight into a dangerous area using volume of fire and maneuvering.  Increases/decreases Risk by MOS as for Relocate, but preserves the Tail state.  Unlike Relocate (any version), the opponent does not have the choice to just not follow; also unlike Relocate, any reactive maneuver is a valid choice.
Reactive Maneuvers
Evade (0/MTN) - As above.  Can also be seen as the "Pursue" maneuver, same stats, for use against Break, Reversal, and Hotshot.
Full Evade (0/ TN 4) - As above.  Yields init. and gives up your Tail state.
Follow (0/STN) - Alternate defense against maneuvers by your pursuit target, except Turret Fire.
Chase (O/[MTN+Risk]) - Specific defense against Hotshot, this is the only Tail reaction which does not automatically lose the Tail position against that maneuver.  See below.

"Dog" State
Active Maneuvers
Break (0/MTN) - Loses your Tail, returning you both to Disengaged (at least with respect to this opponent).
Reversal (3/MTN) - Loses your Tail, and puts you on his Tail instead.  MOS is lost dice from his pool, as with the Tail maneuver.  MOS zero means that the tail is broken but you're only disengaged.
Relocate (0/STN) - As above; note that the Tail Reactive maneuver "Follow" is a valid response.
Hotshot (2/[MTN+Risk]) - May only be performed in an area which is risky to yourself (and presumably your opponent or you wouldn't bother), Risk factor +1 or higher.  Automatically breaks the Tail unless he responds with Chase, but if he reacts with any other maneuver (and wins), his MOS is bonus dice for a Tail attempt next exchange.  Getting zero successes on a Hotshot maneuver is not good for your health, counting as a failed Terrain roll.  However, winning a Hotshot roll means that your opponent has "failed a Terrain roll" and has to face the consequences there.
Reactive Maneuvers
Evade (0/MTN) - As above.
Evade and Break (2/MTN) - Loses the Tail if successful.
Evade and Reversal (4/MTN) - As Reversal, if successful.
Full Evade (0/TN 4) - Defends desperately, yielding initiative, and from this position, also allows the tail to increase/decrease Risk by one per two successes on his roll, as though Harrying you.
Burn (3/STN) - Loses the Tail if successful, in addition to its usual effects.

The Risk factor in all of the above deserves mention; I'm using this as an expansion of the Terrain rules in TROS.  Risk factor is just a number, zero in deep space, higher in more dangerous environments.  At the start of each round, Terrain rolls are made against a TN of (four plus Risk factor); Risk also factors into the Hotshot and Chase maneuvers, making them more dangerous.  The terminology change is partly so that maneuverability still matters in the above maneuvers (they had been "TN = Terrain difficulty" before, but we realized that this obviated the ships' maneuverability entirely, which was definitely counterintuitive), and partly because we realized that this would do a marvelous job of handling not only asteroids, buildings, cliffs, tunnels, what have you, but also one-sided risks like the turbolasers on a Star Destroyer.  It's an area risk, with one difference - it doesn't shoot at its friends!  

I like this paradigm, as it means that we don't have to worry about the skill of the turbolaser gunners or anything like that, merely the presence of the big ship as a feature of the combat.  (Interestingly, one could consider "Close to the hull" to be a risk area dangerous to both sides - and since in general I assume they don't overlap, this gets you out of "Turbolaser land" and into a more equal situation.)  Getting hit by a turbolaser blast should be like hitting an asteroid - it's an all-or-nothing kind of risk, not one that goes in small increments.  I think Risk factors need maximums - no matter how close you get to a lightly armed big ship, it can't justify Risk 5, and ditto for a sparse asteroid field or wide tunnel system.

The issue of what happens when you fail a Terrain roll, or suffer the equivalent result, isn't clear to me.  It suspect it shouldn't mean you hit the boulder or got hit by the Star Destroyer for sure - that makes Hotshot too powerful and Risk in general perhaps too nasty.  But maybe it means a roll (Risk factor vs. some TN - perhaps opponent's Speed TN or something) which indicates whether this was a glancing impact (just some "shock") or a solid one (heavy, serious damage).  To be decided.

The Maneuvers list plus those starships and the Risk rule pretty much covers what we started with, although a couple of TROS staples do need fiddling under this paradigm:
- Red and White die just doesn't cut it at the start.  Unlike "Attack/Defense," there's no real downside to always being Active instead of Reactive when things start off.  We gave starting initiative to the Light Side, for the time being.
- Pauses in combat don't really make sense, much of the time - especially in a dogtail situation - and, per the above, there's little logic to "Throw down!" anyway, so a full pause lacks its normal impact.  
- Given this, I've ruled instead that Full Evade (a) always loses the initiative, regardless of its successes and of any other effects (dice into Jinking, etc); (b) gives up the Tail position if you've got it; (c) lets the attacker move the combat somewhat, if he's on the Tail, as if he had Harried you.  This seemed to work.  We did note that, interestingly, this meant (as they were statted) there was never a good reason for TIE fighers to full evade - which felt very in-theme, really, you never saw them get panicky, you just saw them die, or not.

After a little playtesting, we found that (a) the damage was too low compared to the shield values, so we reduced both shields values by one point (giving the TIE a value of minus one, which I kind of like), and (b) the ATN values were too high compared to the MTN values - combat was dragging a little.  Finally, the match was too even; I wanted it set so that one X-Wing could chew up one TIE fighter for sure (especially with a slight CP edge), and we were planning to test 2-on-1 afterward.  The reason was the TIE's MTN of four, which I knew was low and which gave it too large an edge there.  We figured that five would still be really nice but less over the edge.  So final ship stats should, according to one test, be:

X-Wing: ATN 6, MTN 6, STN 6, Dmg +2, Shields +1
TIE Fighter: ATN 7, MTN 5, STN 6, DMG +1, Shields -1

...which makes sense given the X-Wing's "solid in everything, best in none" general feel.  (We also liked the fact that the least the X-Wing could do was a level three wound on any hit on a TIE.)

As playtest observation goes, it looks like things are pretty balanced; just about every maneuver was at least tried, except for the stuff which requires Risk - we both actively resisted attempts to get the fight into "favored" areas, so the entire dogfight stayed in clear space.  One memorable exchange:  Start of round, TIE has the initiative and is Tailing the X-Wing.  Nobody's damaged yet (with the final stats the X-Wing would have take a lvl1 wound by now, but that's it).  "Um... okay.  Harry, eight dice, let's go play in the turbolasers."  "Meaning you have nothing left for next exchange." "Yup." "Hmp.  Okay - Evade and Break, nine dice - let's make this the round."  IIRC, the result was victory to the TIE, but for zero net successes, so nothing done... but it had the same "put it on the line" feel that TROS combat sometimes has, very nice indeed.

So.  Discussion of this ruleset and tweaks to it can go here - but Jake, although of course there's no chance of getting the SW license away from Wizards, I'd say that letting a setting bake itself here and working this into solid form would give you a very nice addition to Driftwood's line.

- Eric

(Edited 4PM same day, to fix a naming overlap in the maneuvers list.)

[MachMoth]

Personally, I've been juggling the validity of a Mecha combat using TROS.  The only part that had me stumped was the ranged weapons.  TROS works well for medieval weaponry, like bows and what not, but the same rules didn't lend themselves to chainguns and pulse rifles.  I hadn't thought, until looking at this, about adjusting the melee ranges to include quick ranged weaponry.

Driftwood may not be able to get the StarWars license, but I see that as a blessing, not a curse.  TROS has already proven that they are capable of a highly detailed, and well constructed setting.  I would much rather see a new, full blown Sci-Fi world, covering everything from personal arms combat, to giant robots and tanks trashing a city, to fighter and capital space ship lighting up space, to interplanetary diplomacy.  Then, leave it to the community (the ones that won't get sued) to release StarWars material.

[Harlequin]

Oh, agreed absolutely - it's a blessing clear and simple.  But it does mean that until we have something resembling a setting, we may as well use TIE fighters as the bad guys in testing.

I can see where you'd be having trouble with mecha, though... I think this model is made feasible because in space (opera) combat, the level of mobility is so high that ranged weapons still primarily end up a lot like melee weapons do - waiting for the good opportunity, and then taking it.  The range "scales down" with the greater mobility, leaving about the same range/motion ratio as melee.  If your mecha are big and slow, that wouldn't be the case.  (Thinking about some of the source material, though, for example the Robotech series, big and slow may not obtain, in which case a version of the above might suit you.)

- Eric

[MachMoth]

Ideally, I'd like to be able to use the mecha from Metal Warrior for the SNES, by Konami.  Not just because I like it, but because the mecha are so varied that if a system could handle it, I think it could handle about any mecha setting.

Metal Warrior included:
The modern, humanoid robot.  It could fly, shoot, and had a light saber and a variety of shields.
The classic, humanoid.  Could jump, and jet-roll forward.  Had a chaingun and a chain-axe.
The Spider.  Could climb walls, shoot webbing, and turn invisible.
The Heavy.  Slow moving weapons platform.
The Ball.  Rolled into a ball for mobility, uncurled into a weapons platform.
The saucer.  Typical flying saucer like mobility, with 360 degree firing.

Of all the games I've tried, I thing TROS has the best chance of pulling off that kind of variety.  Each could have its own set of special maneuvers, and a lot of what you posted up top would apply.  Yet, the pilot's skill still matters a lot.

[Harlequin]

Si - but can I ask that we move the discussion elsewhere just so that this thread can more easily be kept focused and so that there isn't a barrier to entry for those not interested in that aspect?  I'd love to help tinker with that as well, but it's quite a different beast once you talk specifics.

[Harlequin]

Aha - speaking of on-track.  I think I have a fix for Hotshot which would allow all failed Terrain rolls to be immediately nasty (and usually fatal).  Remove the clause where the successful Hotshot "attack" inflicts a failed terrain roll on the tailing ship.  Instead, put the same clause (zero successes means you hit something as per a failed terrain roll) on Chase as well.  This does mean that there isn't a way to handle a TIE which tries to pull out without following you in, and fails, smashing into it anyway... but the simplicity is well worth losing that image.  

(We don't completely lose the image, either, it just has to happen over two rolls.  TIE uses Evade defensively, doesn't win the roll, end of round; start of round, Terrain rolls please, oops, TIE didn't make it.  Retrospectively, he tried to pull out and failed.  This would make a good end to an example scenario.)

Done that way I'm quite satisfied.  The only loose end it leaves dangling, IMO, is that a few maneuvers - Hotshot among them - lack a benefit for their margin of success; they either go or don't go.  For passive maneuvers like Evade, this doesn't bother me.  For active ones, it does, and I'd like every active trick to be better with a higher margin of success.

Possibly these two could be combined somehow, with a high-MOS Hotshot versus an Evade giving a chance that the Evading ship hits the obstacle, but I can't think how to construct it, given that by the time the MOS exists, asking the defender for any more dice from his pool (in this exchange) is certainly not fair.  

If nothing else we could go with the "default" that Hotshot's MOS either adds dice to its user or subtracts them from its opponent.  But it's already potent enough and doesn't need that much edge; moreover, a low-dice Hotshot is a fool's gamble given the risk of death.  Perhaps, given that, an MOS-related outcome isn't necessary.  I think I buy that, it just diverges from the TROS pattern.  Opinions?

- Eric

[Brian Leybourne]

can I ask that we move the discussion elsewhere just so that this thread can more easily be kept focused

Guys, you're talking TROS in a different setting, so if you want to move the thread you can discuss it in the TROS forum if you like.

SW/TROS is a cool concept. I did some work on lightsabre combat and the force etc, plus similar things have been discussed a few times in the TROS forum in the past. Do a search and you'll find them.

[Lance D. Allen]

Heh.. Problem with moving it to the TRoS forum is that they took Jake's idea of a loosely TRoS-based dogfighting game, and are running away with it. It's not intended, at least not so far as I've been seeing, to be TRoS, but an entirely separate game which borrows some of the core mechanics, then applies them in totally new ways.

[Harlequin]

I'm not sure of that; it could be one side of a strong TRoF (or very similar) game.  "Entirely separate" is IMO unwarranted.  The stuff done on TRoF over in the TROS forum could apply, although just about everything I found there was related to the Force or other person-to-person issues - the few mentions of starfighters I found were remarkably close in concept to what's above in this thread, but lacked any depth.  (If I missed a thread, please point me to it; I just searched for "space" and followed interesting-looking threads.)

In terms of locale, I'd say this is a thread which could perfectly well live either here or in the TROS forum, and I for one don't care; it would really depend what it grew into, what it gained for non-spacecraft mechanics, etc etc.  How about this - Brian, I'll request that this move to the TROS forum, if in return you'll actively contribute to in-thread (not metathread) content. [Grin][/Grin]

Do we have any comments that actually relate to the top post of this thread?  Guys, please.  Don't threadjack straight out of infancy.  Comment on the content, then threadjack away.

- Eric

[Jake Norwood]

Leave the thread here. It's a separate, if related, baby.

I want this to be written, but I can't write it!!!! So who's gonna? If it starts looking good, I'll back it financially.

Jake

[Harlequin]

I can contribute (more, I mean) but I honestly can't commit to the writing proper... I have a more important (to me) commitment which has to take priority and is, itself, not getting written fast enough as is.

If you don't have a deadline, though, then let's just keep tossing this around, mechanics here, setting there, and see what emerges - or, alternately, Jake, take creative directorship and start steering toward a vision/framework, and we'll run with the ball a lot and stuff will come out.  Then in a month, refine the direction based on what came out.  There are worse ways to kick off a project.

One suggestion would be to pick two rules foci, like TROS has - melee, and sorcery - one main and one secondary, and then build a world that supports those.  Starfighters, and - what?  Jedi-like melee/ranged heroics?  Intrigue (give us a chance to play out those TROS social mechanics ideas) and courtly life, with most of the combat done in starfighters?  Rulership and clash of social mores (with strong heraldic and social status structure, if not mechanics)?  I'd say pick two and let the others be covered in simplest form.  What's your gut say?

- Eric

[LordSmerf]

Ok.  A couple of things.

Hotshot - If you want MoS to do something, you have a couple of options.  One: Raise the TN or reduce successes (or dice) for any action to follow.  If you evade away MoS is irrelevent, but if you try to follow you better hope you're better than he is.  Two: provide a bonus to any successive action.  If i have 4 successes on Hotshot and you follow with 2 then i get two extra dice for my next action.

Actual writing.  I'll talk to one of the local guys, he's embroiled in a highly detailed "crunchy" social system (which he's calling Leverage) at the moment.  If the direction we take this is Space Combat + Intrigues of the Court then we might be able to dovetail the two projects.  If this turns out to be the case then i would be willing to do the writing.  I would be using a good deal of TRoS combat mechanics, but i think i would do something else with the majority of the remainder.

I don't know, what do you guys think?

Thomas

[Lance D. Allen]

Yeah.. Lord Smerf brings up a point that is important..

What are the character's supposed to DO in this game?

Jake, as you're the originator of this idea, perhaps you should be the one to answer this question. Someone, whom I hope will forgive me for forgetting who they are, once came up with a brilliant way to decide this:

Write up a session, or a portion of a session, of how you think a session of this game would play out, with some inter-player conversation and some inter-character conversation. Do NOT, absolutely do not include any mechanics. Once you've written it, look it over. Figure out what's most important, what aspects you want to dominate the game, or to stand out most, and then write the game to play to those aspects.

I get the impression that you want dogfights to be a very important part of the game, which the current mechanical discussion is doing a good job of supporting. But is the rest of it going to be as important? Social interaction, etc? Will this game have SAs? Would it benefit from having SAs?

These are the sorts of questions that you'll need to answer once you've written up the session, if you choose to do so.

[Mike Holmes]

SAs, definitely. Or something like them.

Is anyone else watching the sci-fi channel Battlestar Galactica? :-)

Mike

[LordSmerf]

I watched it last night...  Maybe it comes from not having seen the beginnging, but it seems kind of incoherent.

Anyway, i definately think that this would be a fun game to play with space combat and court intrigue.  What about "monsters?"  Dragons, Ogres, Giants, all that.  Since we're doing combat in space do we want to get rid of them altogether, make "space monsters," use AI spaceships?

Thomas