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

In <URL:news:local.spelljam> on Wed 03 May, David Shepheard wrote:
> 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.

Actually I said 3rdEd because of the changing round length, so I
thought that made sense.

The idea was to take the existing 2ndEd system, and note the
minimum changes needed to it for 3rdEd.  With, possibly some
recommendations to extend play in different directions.


> >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).

The reason MC is used is to turn, I thought; it represents
turning potential.  The point was that 3rdEd replaced hexes with
squares for a combat grid, but had apparently workable rules for
diagonal movement.  I wondered if these could be applied to SJ
ships.

I said that I wasn't a wargamer...


> >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.

Maybe you could have few different sized clouds of scavvers, on a
transparent background, as an encounter token?


> 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.

The reason I suggested this is that while many DMs might have
ship counters, detailed deck plans are another matter.  Using a
wipeable battlemat also allows variation in deck layout, or use
of multiple ships with the same layout.  You never know what the
PCs are going to do! [grin]

Several DMs that I know are particularly fond of varient
encounters, and a battlemat approach would probably suit things
like Q ships, etc.


> 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).

I've also seen poles used for 3-D air and space combat, and the
ship moved up and down as needed.


> 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.

All sound like interesting ideas!


> >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.

-- 
Dreamer
dreamer@??????.?????.??.uk
http://www.romsys.demon.co.uk/