Alternative SJ ship combat - Was: SJ combat for 3rdEd

This isn't really a conversion of specific 2e rules to 3e - it is an 
alternative system for ship combat. The subject shouldn't really have 3e in 
the title, so I've changed it.

>From: Dreamer <dreamer@??????.?????.??.uk>
>
>This should be taken with a pinch of salt, as I am not a
>wargamer, but what happens if you make SJ combat take place on a
>scale with squares which are 150' on a side?

What happens is that the Manouverability Class system collapses. The whole 
thing works on a hex system. A ships MC allows it to turn a certain angle on 
a hex (you can point in 6 directions on hexes, but only 4 on squares).

>SR 1 is 150'/round in 3rdEd (I think), so you move your SR number
>of 150' squares per round. Normal 3rdEd rules for miniatures
>about going diagonally.

Don't forget that SR doen't just generate forward movement. It is also used 
up making ships with poor MCs turn.

>This would also make the squares of comparable size to some of
>the ships. Maybe you could have ship miniatures glued to a
>transparent larger bit that represented their air envelopes?

You could use large hexes and do the same thing.

I like the idea of a miniature glued to a transparant air envelope. This 
would be very useful when trying to establish if a sonic or air based spell 
can cross from one ship to another.

Perhaps people put overhead pictures of spelljamming ships into a laminator 
and leave a large area of lamination around the ship to represent the air 
envelope. Anyone who didn't have access to a laminator would need a roll of 
stickyback plastic.

To-scale rulers with various ship weapon ranges and spell ranges could also 
prove very useful in speeding up combat.

Make the hexes large enough and you could print out pictures of all the 
monsters with the Natural Spelljammer feat at the same scale. Then you could 
use the whole system to resolve long range conflict between spelljammer 
ships and space creatures.

During a scavver attack, the long range system could be used to work out how 
many scavvers the ships crew could take out before they got onboard.

A dragon vs ship encounter would also be easier to run if distances could be 
measured. I once met a D&D player with a wizard who carried around cut out 
to scale markers with all the possible spell effect ranges on them. I 
suppose it would be possible to make similar markers for a dragon's breath 
weapon.

>Then go to detail combat with 5' squares for actual boarding
>actions. Maybe using ship outlines drawn on wipeable
>square-covered battlemats with non-permanent markers?

I don't see why you couldn't keep the hex map for ship combat and revert to 
squares and large ship plans for grappling and boarding actions.

Deck plans printed out at the same scale as 1 inch miniatures would be the 
ideal thing. I would print the lower deck on one large layer and then print 
out overlays for the higher decks or parts of decks. The whole lot could 
then be stacked up by the DM. If players decend into the lower levels of the 
ship the DM can simply take off the upper levels. If players want to fight 
on multiple-layers they would need to be put side by side (but the bottom 
layer would mark out the real location of the ship for all spell range 
decisions).

Again lamination (or large rolls of sticky back plastic) can take on your 
suggested role of representation of the air envelope. As well as being great 
for testing spell coverage the air envelope shows the extent of the ships 
gravity so could be useful when dealing with crew that fall overboard.

If anyone does decide to do this I would advise them to make a cut out of 
the bottom of the ships hull and glue it to the back of the lower deck plan. 
That way if your players ever want to sneak onto the bottom of an enemy ship 
you can turn a deck plan upside down and still use it!

>Assuming a 2-D battle gives people enough realism for their
>combat; if they want more maybe they could use a 3-D chess board!
>[grin]

LOL!

Joking aside, 3-D combat could probably be represented on a 2-D board. The 
hight above the board (or depth below it) could be shown by a height marker. 
I'm thinking of perhaps a colour coded marker with a number on (red could be 
the negative colour and black could be the positive colour, we could even 
use green to represent zero altitude).

When a helmsman's initiative comes up and they get to act, they could be 
allowed to use SR to trade in their existing altitude for a new one. If SR1 
*is* equal to 150 foot, then the altitude markers could be made in multiples 
of 150:
Black (150, 300, 450, 600, 750, 900 etc), green (0), red (-150, -300, -750, 
-900 etc).

If one ship has a red -750 marker and another has a black 900 marker then a 
simple calculation can show that they would be 1600 feet away from each if 
they were in the same hex.

For ships that are not in the same hex, the horizontal difference, and the 
difference represented by both ships height markers can be used to create an 
imaginary right angle triangle. The two known distances can be used to work 
out the *actual* distance between the two ships.

As for how altitude could be used, lets assume that all ships start off at 
zero altitude (all ships start off with a green 0 altitude marker). On every 
round a helmsman could use up SR in order to pay for an increase or decrease 
in altitude.

>What do people think?
>
>(I'm just floating this, and haven't tried it myself, or run it
>past my wargaming friends.)

Let us know what your wargaming friends think, when you get to talk to them.