I was asked to run a game a few days ago and had to come up with something on the spot. It was a one shot so i couldnt use any of the numerous (complex and political) stories and campaigns i had been planning, and it was one players introduction to gaming so i didnt want it too heavy or complex.

One of the players (my brother) proposed Space Pirates and i liked that. So i wracked my brain and came up with a basic system and some story ideas. It was a very enjoyable game, and i thought the system had a lot of potential.

I thought it best that the primary mechanical dichotomy* of space combat be energy management. Your vessels generator produces a set amount of energy per turn which can be allocated to shields, weapons, engines, hyperdrive, scanners etc. Im sure the idea is relatively familiar to anyone who has played The X-Wing/Tie Fighter games. You can customize your vessel with different sized systems which require differnet outputs from your generator to run ala Mechwarrior/Battletech. Some systems, such as projectile weapons, require no energy to use but are heavier and less powerful. Once an enemies shields are down you can target these systems directly, which decreases their effectiveness (The secondry dichotomy of combat).

Initially i used a very complicated system. A 30 ton generator stored 30 energy units and had an output of 6 per turn. A 10 ton shield system stored 20 units protection and had a consumption of 1 energy for 2 protection to recharge. I simply wrote the numbers down and this made combat slow and mostly math. I have considered other systems (Tokens, or putting a marker at a point on a measure) but i still think this will probably slow the game down too much. My brother thought it focused far too much on mechanics and demphasized clever tactics (The tactic he used was agreeing to transfer a hostage and instead opening fire from behind when their shields were down).

At the moment i am thinking the easiest way to express energy management would be with a schematic of your vessel (With the energy consumption/output/weight, which can all be expressed as one variable, written into boxes representing the different systems) that you place tokens on. Energy is produced from your generator every turn with no storage and allocation is a turn-by-turn affair. Im worried that this destroys most of the purpose of energy management. I havent even gotten to additional rules like overcharging and potential dammage that does to systems, different types of weapons with varying accuracy/dammage types, etc but they can be added once i get the basics down.

Is there any other way to express and record energy management in a fashion that is both fast and interactive, or should i find another primary dichotomy entirely? Maybe i should play it more loose and fast and rely more on dice and roleplay (Which do you think is suited to the setting)? Ive come up with a relatively clean system for the secondry dichotomy (assigning the systems numbers, rolling the dice, allowing the player to change the number up and down by amounts depending on the hit accuracy) but any help with that would be appreciated as well.

Any general discussion on ideas of how to handle a Space Pirates game is also more than welcome.

Note this is soft sci-fi. The players started the game with their cargo holds full of 20 tons of 'Handwavium' and a necessity to find a fence for it, so this game is deliberately ignoring science.

*Im going to use that term since i like it. Going all out early or saving up, offense vs defense, risk vs reward. Stakes. Thats the dichotomy...something to give the player to think about.

How about a big pool of dice?

I take it you are aiming for a sort of "bridge crew" feeling, where each player has separate responsibilities for ship systems in combat - rather than a battle tech (or, really, aero tech) setup where everyone has their own ship. 

Each ship would have a set amount of "energy" at the beginning of combat - represented by a whole mess of six sided dice (they're the most common).  Each system (sensors, shields, weapons, engines) can use only so many dice at once - based on how cool it is.  To do something, the player rolls at least one die from the pool (using power), and maybe adds some dice for skill or clever tactics (adjudicated by the GM).  When a system is damaged, it's maximum dice are reduced.

I think such a system (while a little complicated during setup, but you don't seem to mind that), offers some pretty quick play.  At the same time, it rewards quick thinking (clever plans use less energy, and are more effective!) and character skill (good pilots get more out of their ships, good gunners do more damage).  The system also forces players to get more creative as the fight drags on - they have less energy to use and need those GM bonuses more!

As far as "re-charging" your dice pool, I suppose that's a roll by the Space Engineer (put "Space" in front of *everything*) - adding back some dice. 

I know this doesn't do away with all the recordkeeping and so forth of a typical token based system.  But I do submit to you that the players are going to spend a certain amount of time arguing over their strategy, figuring out how many dice to roll and picking those dice up, etc. anyway.  I figure this just free loads the whole "energy management" concept into the work they're already doing.

Precious wrote:
How about a big pool of dice?

Precious wrote:
I take it you are aiming for a sort of "bridge crew" feeling, where each player has separate responsibilities for ship systems in combat - rather than a battle tech (or, really, aero tech) setup where everyone has their own ship.

Precious wrote:
(put "Space" in front of *everything*)

Now, an example of play under my current system.

Player: Eirik Two Toes
Ship: The Lusty Wench
Generator: 5tonnes
Engine: 1tonnes
Shield: 3t
Armour: 4t
3x 3t Laser Cannons: 3 dammage/1 energy each

Ricardo The Space Snake
Ship: The Stellar Serpent
Generator: 5t
Engine: 3t
Shield: 2t
Armour: 5t
2x 3t Laser Cannons: 3 dammage/1 energy each
2x 4t Projectile Cannon: 2 dammage

Battle:
=1 Eirik is running his engine at full speed for 1 energy.
=2 Ricardo is running his engine at full speed for 3 energy.
=3 Eirik spends 3 energy to fire his Laser cannons, engine: 1e.
Eirik rolls against his enemies speed at 3 on a d10 for each weapon. He gets 6, 8 and 5- they all hit.
He does 9 dammage. Ricardos shield soak 6 dammage (three times his shield rating). His armour is reduced by 3 to 2.
=4 Ricardo spends 2 energy to fire his laser cannons, and fires his projectile cannons, spends 2e recharging his shields, and cuts his engine to 1e.
Ricardo rolls against his enemies speed at 1 on a d10 for his lasers. He gets Lasers: 7, 2. Both hit.
Ricardo rolls against his enemies speed +1 (2) on a d10 for his projectiles (They are less accurate). He gets a 6 and a 2. One hits.
He does 10 dammage. Eiriks shields soak 9 dammage. Armour -1 to 3.
=5 Eirik lasers: 2e, shields: 3e (He turns his engine off).
Eirik rolls against 1. He gets 7, 6
Does 6 dammage. shield -6.
=6 Ricardo shields: 2e engines: 3e. He takes Evasive Action (He can do this because he didnt fire this turn), doubling his difficulty to be hit.
=7 Eirik lasers: 3e, engine: 1e (His shields are charged).
Eirik rolls against 6. He gets 9, 9, 4.
Does 6 dammage. shield -6.
=8 Ricardo shields: 2e engines: 3e. He takes Evasive Action. He is on the run.
=9 Eirik lasers: 3e, engine: 1e.
Eirik rolls against 6. He gets 6, 6, 1. All shots miss.
=10 Ricardo lasers: 2e engines: 3e. His shields are fully charged, time to attack.
Ricardos lasers roll against 1. He gets 8, 4.
Ricardos projectiles roll against 2. He gets 2, 9.
Ricardo does 8 dammage. 9 is soaked by Eiriks shields (rounded up, it soaks in 3's).
=11 Eirik lasers: 3e, shield: 2e
Eirik rolls against 2. He gets 9, 9, 2.
Ricardo takes 6, -6.
=12 Ricardo lasers: 2e shields: 2e. engines: 1e
Ricardos lasers roll against 0. So he automatically hits.
Ricardos projectiles roll against 1. He gets 5, 1.
Ricardo does 9 dammage. 6 is soaked by Eiriks shields (He didnt fully charge). Armour is reduced by 3 to 0.
=13 Eirik lasers: 3e, shield: 2e
Eirik rolls against 1. He gets 6, 1, 4. 2 hit.
Ricardo takes 6, -6.
=14 Ricardo lasers: 2e shields: 2e. engines: 1e
Ricardos lasers hit.
Ricardos projectiles roll against 1. He gets 4, 6.
Eirik takes 10. -6.
4 dammage passes on to his systems. Ricardo rolls a 2 on a d6, hitting Eiriks 2nd system, his engine. Eiriks engine is taken it -3. He is dead in space. He rolls against 3 to see if it explodes. He gets 9. Phew.
=15 Eirik lasers: 3e, shield: 2e
Eirik rolls against 1. He gets 2, 5, 6
Ricardo takes 9, -6.
3 dammage passes on to his systems. Eirik rolls a 5 on a d6, hitting Eiriks 5th system, his lasers. One of Ricardos lasers is destroyed (taken to 0).
=16 Ricardo lasers: 2e shields: 2e. engines: 1e
Ricardo elects to make a targetted shot at Eiriks engines, increasing the difficulty by 2. This will move the system dammage allocation 1 towards Eiriks engine.
Ricardos laser rolls against 2. He gets 4.
Ricardos projectiles roll against 3. He gets 6, 4.
Eirik takes 7. -6.
1 to systems. Ricardo rolls 3 on a d6. However his targetted shot moves it down by one to 2 hitting ricardos engine. Eiriks engine is taken it -4. He must roll against 4 to see if it explodes  He gets 4.
=17 The engine of The Lusty Wench explodes and does 7 damage each to the sorrounding systems. His generator is taken to 1, his shield to -1. Eirik roles to see if his shield explodes. He gets 6. Eirik has now but one power coming from his dammaged engine, unable to run his systems, his shields are down and his engine has been vaporized. He opens a channel to Ricardo using backup power, offering his unconditional surrender. Ricardo accepts.

Firstly, it relies more on chance than i thought it might. Secondly, the descision seems to be running your engines or not. The only real reason to run your engines is to take evasive action while your shields recharge. In Eiriks case with his awful engines, evasive action would have been fruitless and it hardly made a difference when he had them on. I dont know if there is much point rolling against 1. Might need to look into that.
I should add some other offensive option (More lasers?) to allow a player to go all out on an attack. Yeah, decrease the likelyhood to hit, increase the number of weapons. Might work.

Oh well. Even with these few variables, this battle took a long time to type and would probably take just as long to play. I like the system i just dont know if its feasible.

In turn 4 Ricardo only does 8 dammage, not 10. Pretend he got a 3, not a 2.
He should also do 8 dammage in =12. Not 9. *sigh*i
n =16 he hits Eiriks engine, not Ricardos (He is Ricardo!)
In =17 it does 4 dammage, not 7.
Haha. See not even i can keep track. This system is painfully flawed.

Oscar wrote: Is there any other way to express and record energy management in a fashion that is both fast and interactive, or should i find another primary dichotomy entirely?

Oscar wrote: Maybe i should play it more loose and fast and rely more on dice and roleplay (Which do you think is suited to the setting)?

I had hoped you would have something to say, David. Im not sure how interesting my ideas are, though. I feel sort of like i should just go back to the drawing board.

David wrote:
In short, the engines will really just tell the player how many tokens they may shuffle (their maximum) and there is no game method of tracking "generate > store > expend". Basically, the game system will assume that the players will use all power at all times.

David wrote:
...batteries... just another ship component:

David wrote:
All that said: If the game is about space combat, then it needs interesting challenges and simulation systems to explore that. If the game is about "tough moral choices" that face pirates, or about the weird soap operas that revolve around space-born pirates, or about... well, you get the idea... then it should focus on social interplay, character emotional development, and relationships. Not a lot of need for crunchy game mechanics to handle "realistic" energy management and tactics.

David wrote:
Because I am in the futurist camp that believes that space battle will be fought in nanoseconds, by machines, at tremendous distances, using weapons that are phenominally destructive

David wrote:
But NOT to help me decide what is "best" for my games.

Oh darn...was it Decipher ( i know they had star wars game) and west end games (first incarnation) that made the "first" star wars rpg?

I am bringing this because my memory is telling me they used d6s to determine damage, shield soak, etc.  I personally think every die roll adds a layer of complexity to the space battle.

We need to know how far in the future you want to go.  I am imagining, in the near future, we will have lasers and guns that fire projectiles with electricity (electric rail guns replacing cannons.')  instead of chemically.  If there was a "first military space craft", those would the weapons mounted on it with the addition of various kinds of bomb (mostly nuclear).  The lasers would be used to for surgical strikes (probably to disable craft without destroying it) and the electrically propelled bullets and shells would be used for general damage.

As for defense, I foresee ECM weapons, magnetic fields to propel metallic objects away and some sort of energy sink to absorb lasers.  Of course, the first generation versions of these weapons would use a lot of energy.  Therefore, the first military space craft would be large, bulky ships carrying relatively few energy weapons for its size.  I imagine that the ships would be powered by fusion reactors.

Maneuvering these ships would be hard to do, therefore armor and the ability to absorb energy, along with accuracy would be the determining factors of any battle (unless one or more side just used nuclear weapons). 

With all this being said, I picture defensive capabilities to be pick and chose.  i.e., you can't defend against all kinds of attacks.  You would have to pick magnetic shields (propelling metallic objects) or turning on the energy sink (absorbing lasers).  You would have armor and attempts to "jack with the computer aiming the weapons."  Hence, electronic measures and countermeasures become another factor in battle.

To make it more fair (in my opinion) the ship could only use lasers, ecm or projectile/explosive weapons during a turn (not all three.)  I see a roll for aiming (representing the hacking being done on both sides) and a roll for damage. If the weapon hits and if you chose the right defense, then you get to deduct the defense value of the shield from the damage roll before it hits.  If not, then calculate damage to armor.  If damage exceeds armor, then (I haven't got that far yet.)  ECM = penalties, then ship shutdown once penalities reach a certain point.

BTW, I can't even imagine what things would be like beyond that point.

Hope this helps,

Sean

sean2099 wrote:
I personally think every die roll adds a layer of complexity to the space battle.

sean2099 wrote:
We need to know how far in the future you want to go.

sean2099 wrote:
magnetic fields to propel metallic objects away and some sort of energy sink to absorb lasers.

sean2099 wrote:
To make it more fair (in my opinion) the ship could only use lasers, ecm or projectile/explosive weapons during a turn (not all three.)

sean2099 wrote:
ECM

I'm gonna guess that Sean has read some Iain Banks. ;-)

Oscar, I'll leave tech levels as an aside: just a tossed-out opinion that didn't really speak to the sort of play you have elucidated with subsequent posts.

I think your no-dice conclusion is a good one. If you posit things like computer-assisted targeting (and countermeasures), reasonably effective sensors (and countermeasures), and electromagnetic weaponry (and countermeasures) then the space battles of your far future really won't have a lot of randomness or fortune to them. The best system allocation wins. Quickly and violently.

But do not fail to consider Sean's mentioning of hacking and weapons of disablement: after all, this is Space PIRATES: the players will want very much to control opposition craft, not destroy them. Opposition will probably want to destroy, not control (except maybe high-minded authorities). So the battles from the perspective of players will become a balancing act between not being destroyed while taking control of the opposition: using less force and still attempting to win. Starship aikido.

So I think you want your system to very seriously consider how successful attacks can be "shaped" for different ends. Perhaps a called "shots" sort of system, where players keep up defenses and maneuver until they have enough "juice" (built up advantage) to make a called shot that knocks out the opponent's engines... or life support, if the living contents of the craft are not desired. That might be done with a well-aimed shot, or it might be done with a successful insertion of a computer virus via the opposition's sensors, or it might just be a case of coming alongside and hull breaching with marines (because few space vessels could survive being right next to an opponent when it blows, a fight could be ended with simple proximity; like being held hostage by a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest).

So we're talking about a system that supports maneuvering, attacks, countermeasures, shields, armor, sensors, and computer assists. Does that, however, necessarily mean we break out the hex maps and minis and start to roll initiative? Or couldn't such interplay and complexity still be managed by a conflict resolution system that would also support the more narrative, social, soft aspects of your game play? What real difference is there between starship aikido and using subterfuge in a conversation to get the opposition to slip some secret? Or convincing the nubile Venusian Princess to let you dock for the night (no snickering!)? Both sides of these conflicts peek past their defenses--exposing themselves to do so--and snipe away at their objective....

Perhaps a good look at the current d20 Star Wars dogfight rules would be useful to you? They have a somewhat abstracted combat system (no minis) which nevertheless uses elements of tactics and resource allocation to make combat appropriately cinematic and "crunchy" without bogging down in math and minutiae. It's definitely a long way from Star Fleet Battles or even the Star Trek starship combat rules, which used a lot of little boxes to mark energy allocation and remaining shields and hull strength--kind of a nightmare, as I recall, but its focus was on how a crew can help a machine, and that was neat.

Of course, there are some things you will have to handwave away, not the least of which will be computer control. As Iain Banks realized in his Culture Universe, once you have an AI running battles with light-speed weaponry (EM), then the humans just become fragile cargo that limit maneuverability and gee-loads. The fights will be all about which machine can dominate the other one mentally, only using weaponry to interdict maneuvering or blind/disarm the opposition. And given the likely speeds of computation by then, it would be more like watching a game of chess played at light-speed: the humans know they won the battle because they survived the first second of the engagement. Nope, not at all the sort of game you want at all; so no AI control can be allowed.

Just some meandering thoughts... I am not sure what specifically I could help you with in design, now that we've gotten past the "general notion of play" stage....
David

I thought about your energy allocation system.  What if you did something like this for skills?  With a digression into ship building, what if certain ships received so many design points...they place points into things like weapons, electronics, shields, etc.  At the end of design, all of your categories would have a rating.  This rating would represent the maximum "skill" result.  i.e. if weapons are rated at a 5 and there is a gunner with 'ship weapons skill: 5', then the result of any skill rolls is a five (this represents the human/computer interface)
If the rating of the ship or human is less, use the lesser rating.  The static ratings are compared with each other...higher rating winning.  i.e. weapons vs defense.  Another tangent:  perhaps sensors could equate to initiative roll.

Then if weapons hit, a static damage number is applied (minus shield rating) to the ship's hull.  At this point, every maneuver has a static rating.  Perhaps players (as higher level officers) could 'inspire' (in one form or another) x number of areas.  For every unit of inspiration, the static rating is raised by one for that turn.

In any case, I tried to write an example of a system where there are no dice rolls in an effort to eliminate randomness.  If I read your posts correctly Oscar, this is what you are trying to do.  I am not saying that this the solution to your design dilemma but perhaps comparing an idea with lots of randomness and an idea with no randomness will help you in your design efforts.

Sean

David wrote:
I think your no-dice conclusion is a good one. Quickly and violently.

s wrote:
In any case, I tried to write an example of a system where there are no dice rolls in an effort to eliminate randomness.

David wrote:
Starship aikido.

David wrote:
What real difference is there between starship aikido and using subterfuge in a conversation to get the opposition to slip some secret? Or convincing the nubile Venusian Princess to let you dock for the night (no snickering!)?

David wrote:
Just some meandering thoughts... I am not sure what specifically I could help you with in design, now that we've gotten past the "general notion of play" stage...

s wrote:
This rating would represent the maximum "skill" result.  i.e. if weapons are rated at a 5 and there is a gunner with 'ship weapons skill: 5', then the result of any skill rolls is a five (this represents the human/computer interface)... ...For every unit of inspiration, the static rating is raised by one for that turn.

RE: All the above: Glad to help. Looks like you are getting closer to what you envision.
[hr]A thought occurred to me last night; something we've been sort of disregarding.

Delta-V. Unless a space engagement is a "boom-n-zoom" (surprise strike leading to immediate defeat), the actual "winner" might be the craft with the most net delta-V (i.e fuel to burn to change vectors) after the engagement! Regardless of damage (yep...follow me).

Say I am space pirate and I get into a protracted "turn-n-burn" engagement with my target ship. But it has more delta-V. I have to be careful that, in defeating the vessel, I do not strand myself in the shipping lanes, waiting for rescue (from authorities... bummer). Because you can bet that a vessel about to be overrun would commit to serious, fuel-burning actions, perhaps up to and including fuel dumping.

And my solar panels won't bail me out in time: no pirate would engage in-system, with all sorts of local defenses around: they'd go for ships just emerging into their target Oort cloud (or insert hand-wavy FTL rule here... but it's gotta be somewhere with isolation, or piracy becomes a very dicey proposition). You are gonna get the most of your piracy out in the cold, dark regions of the shipping lanes.

Further, the general notion of delta-V applies equally to those "soft" conflicts mentioned above. You can only try to charm the Venusian Princess so many different ways and times before you have "struck out" (i.e. lost all delta-V and are left hanging). You can only try word game tricks so many times before your subterfuge target clams up, suspiciously. Emotional exhaustion, in general, is very close (metaphorically) to running low on fuel.

And it doesn't have to map into your allocation system directly! You could use delta-V as a sort of "turn limiter" for any conflict. A ship's delta-V determine how many times you can use all power before you better be lighting your warp drive and making your way to some helium/hydrogen. Likewise with social encounters: your "charisma" would be a turn limiter on attempts at social domination, coercion, or persuasion. To make various methods of social "attack" strategic, some could take more "stages" of success to be a complete success--burning a turn each stage--while others might not take as many stages, but have less efficacy.

For instance, a "seduction" might take five stages. Your "charisma" might allow you seven turns: you can only flub two lines, or you will strike out. Meanwhile, a subterfuge might only have two or three stages: that same seven "charisma" can allow you to possibly succeed at prying out a secret TWICE (or thrice) in one conversation! And on the flip side, you could allow "banking" of successes--similar to using starship batteries--to store up successes for a later conflict. I might have a three in "charisma" and so to seduce someone, I'd need to have two (or maybe three, if I roll poorly) encounters before I hit the lucky fifth success and started looking for a room.

[hr]More to consider: Are you interested in modeling orbital dynamics and other physical effects? Either for allowing funky maneuvers to escape/attack, or to save delta-V? Gravity assists, atmospheric aerobraking, gravity lensing (increase EM weapon range and sensor fidelity), etc? Might get a bit too crunchy....

HTH;
David

David wrote:
RE: All the above: Glad to help. Looks like you are getting closer to what you envision.
[hr]A thought occurred to me last night; something we've been sort of disregarding.

Delta-V. Unless a space engagement is a "boom-n-zoom" (surprise strike leading to immediate defeat), the actual "winner" might be the craft with the most net delta-V (i.e fuel to burn to change vectors) after the engagement! Regardless of damage (yep...follow me).

HTH;
David

Mechanically, Delta-v would serve a similiar purpose as a long term battery. Limiting your total actions over the course of the conflict. Trading off spending it early and ineffeciently for a big bang, or saving it up for a long term conflict. Managing it as a seperate variable from energy would probably just make combat even more ponderous.

Haha. You both have wonderful ideas. You are very good at making my game more complicated.

Im sort of at an impasse here. Ill post my design document, then i think ill put this on the back burner until i can come up with some new inspiration.

Space Pirate Design Document

*sigh* Lets try that again (Wish you could edit these things): Space Pirates Design Document

I imagined the ships running on nuclear power (that's why I didn't think about fuel.)

Managing it as a separate variable from energy would probably just make combat even more ponderous.
...
Haha. You both have wonderful ideas. You are very good at making my game more complicated.

Which really makes the MOST sense, if you have FTL craft: no one would be spending any time in normal space between destinations anyway.

All piracy happens between, say, the Oort cloud of a system and its destination planets/habitats, and it tends to prey upon in-system transport craft rather than out-system liners.

First, let me say that I will clam up at a single request. I am just trying to consider all the raw elements of how I imagine space battles to be conducted, and toss them out there to be caught or left to flop on the deck like a decompression victim.

Or is it impossible to gauge how far along a known vector a particular ship has jumped

Heheh... OK, OK, I'll read the design doc, now. Any advice as to how we should read it? Still tinkering, or read for coherence, or just copyedit?

In order to make it to the planets in any reasonable amount of time from the edge of the Oort cloud, the players would need to be travelling at an insane speed.

You are very vulnerable after a jump though, as it is a serious power drain. This gives your quarry ample opportunity to run away or blast you.

It is very important that it be balanced, and there be no single superior design or piece of equipment.

Ideally the story should evolve out of what sort of trouble the players decide to get themselves in.

Put differently: if you are going for the flavor of piracy, how about going for the time scales of piracy in our own past?

Boy, howdy, that's true. And, man, it's gonna be hard to pull off. It is just WAY tricky to avoid the "Ogg Mage Syndrome" - given enough of a player base, the synergies of effects in a game system will inevitable bubble out an optimal combination of effects.

OK, then you need some system in place for...

EVERYONE owes somebody something

the character-as-a-group-member.

Oscar wrote:
Now this is something i had problems with in the initial game. The players ended up separating! I want to encourage independence and opportunism, as that's what piracy is all about. Just not the point that i need to run 4 different games.

I only discovered the forge today and love discussions like this.

I have an idea for simple space combat that uses energy manipulation.
Each system gets a different die according to it's quality i.e. poor lasers get a d6, average d6, good d8 and excellent d10.
Each player gets so many dice to play with per turn i.e. 6 dice for all systems
You can use more than one dice per system per turn and take the highest roll for that system.
e.g. player A zaps pirate B with his lasers using 2 dice of energy these are a 3 and 5. Pirate  takes 5 damage off his shield.

Player skills are simple pluses to the dice rolled for that area.
e.g. using the previous example, if player A had a +2 laser skill the result would be 7 damage not 5

To have attack and defence you could use targeting computers Vs manuver drives, you roll manuver during your turn to see how well you dodge till the next turn.
Then damage is weapons Vs shields with generators renewing shields upto the die max each turn
i.e. my shields are 3, I roll 5 on my d6 shield generator, my shields go up to my maximum 6
To show different weapons, start with two types
type A lasers (pluse gun) will damage shields and phyiscallly damage ships (damage come off the hull of the ship)
type B lasers (ion cannon) will only do half damage to shields but can incapacitate ships (damage comes off the dice pool of the ship)
A ship can carry both types of lasers but only fire one per turn

All this should encourage players to go for different ship specs, 'do I have big lasers or a good manuver to dodge', it gives them an upgrade path for their ships, 'I need those d8 shield generators' and finally teamwork, 'I'll take out his shields, then you can incapaciate his ship'

And all without to much dice work, one for hit, one for damage.

hope any or all of these ideas help.