Starship Combat Questions

[Doug Taylor]

As I'm prepping for our first starship combat, a couple of questions have arisen:

1) On p. 102 (NG), under "Analyzing Ship Status" it says that you use System Operation (Sensors) at TN 15, then it has a sentence that says "Modifiers for range and interference apply". Does anyone know where any such range modifiers can be found? I was thinking of using the following, absent anything in the rules:

- Point Blank: 0
- Short: -1
- Medium: -2
- Long: -3
- Extended: -4
- Extended +1: -5
etc., etc.

2) At the top of p. 112 (NG), under "Initiative" it says "Characters lacking the Tactics skill add 0 to their skill test and subtract 2 from the final test result (see "Untrained Skill Use", page 83)." In this initial encounter, the Chief Engineer of our ship (who I think will be the one in charge on the bridge at the start of this battle) doesn't have Tactics at all. But Tactics is a trained skill, which means he shouldn't be able to even use it, since he doesn't have it (per the rules). Is this just another mistake/typo? Since it seems fairly deadly to leave the ship in the hands of someone who doesn't have any Tactics training, perhaps I will make another bridge character with a few ranks in Tactics, to be able to allow the ship an Initiative roll when it is attacked like this (if I'm understanding the way Tactics works, then Lt. Comm. LaForge wouldn't be able to defend the Enterprise very well in similar circumstances, as his Initiative would be a 0).

Any help on this would (as always) be greatly appreciated!

[K.G. Carlson]

I don't know if there is an official ruling in the errata on this, and I don't know off the top of my head if this rule applies in Coda Trek, but I have encountered other game systems where a skill that can normally only be used if "trained" can be used for unconventional purposes untrained. I think that using Tactics as an initiative check in Starship combat rather than an actual Tactics check would fall into this unconventional use definition and would therefore be allowable as an untrained skill check, although normal penalties should apply.

[Tomcat]

This is a thread I participated in a few years back. It contains my Sensor House Rule and it may be of use. Give it a try... but as a simple answer, I use the Physical range modifiers of combat in ship sensor usage as well.

Sensor Rules

As far as interference, you can look through Hazards for anything that might be useful or you can just set the TN that you want the PC's to overcome for a success. If the interference is coming from a jamming effect of another sensor operator, use the Jamming Sensors rules on page 107 of the N.G.

[Doug Taylor]

I don't know if there is an official ruling in the errata on this, and I don't know off the top of my head if this rule applies in Coda Trek, but I have encountered other game systems where a skill that can normally only be used if "trained" can be used for unconventional purposes untrained. I think that using Tactics as an initiative check in Starship combat rather than an actual Tactics check would fall into this unconventional use definition and would therefore be allowable as an untrained skill check, although normal penalties should apply.

Good point; this would probably be a fair way of allowing other characters to participate, still giving them a bit of a handicap.

[Doug Taylor]

This is a thread I participated in a few years back. It contains my Sensor House Rule and it may be of use. Give it a try... but as a simple answer, I use the Physical range modifiers of combat in ship sensor usage as well.

Sensor Rules

As far as interference, you can look through Hazards for anything that might be useful or you can just set the TN that you want the PC's to overcome for a success. If the interference is coming from a jamming effect of another sensor operator, use the Jamming Sensors rules on page 107 of the N.G.

Great stuff, Tomcat (as always). I printed off your Sensor rules and plan on incorporating them.

A few more questions, after reading them and your example in that other thread:

1) In the example you give in the other thread (the Connie and the B'Rel), in the second example (when both ships are running at EMCON 2 and closing in on each other: Your chart shows that two ships - both at EMCON 2) would get a -5 to detect each other. Yet your example shows them each getting a +0 bonus. Am I reading something wrong here?

2) I'm still not clear how you're getting the ranges and numbers for such long ranges. Table 7.7 shows increments of hundreds of thousands of kilometers, but your examples uses references to multiple Light Years. Aren't Light Years way, way longer and further away? I see the new chart (1.29) that shows what ranges ships can scan to at really long ranges (LY), but I still don't get how to translate that into game distances (short, medium, long, exended, etc.

3) You mentioned that the Starships book mentions three states for Sensors: Passive, Intermittent, and Active. This sounds reasonable, but I can't find this in the book. Can you point me to that part?

[PGoodman13]

We've recently gone through some of this on the PBP game I'm involved in, Doug; as soon as I get some time, I'll find where the answers we settled on and send you a link.

Or, you can just go to the game forum and read through the threads on your own.

[Tomcat]

Great stuff, Tomcat (as always). I printed off your Sensor rules and plan on incorporating them.

Thanks! I hope they will be of use. I can say that after reading through them again after these past years, I can see where they might need more tweaking, so feel free to break them down and re-tool as needed. I'd love to see what changes you make, if any, so be sure and post them here.

A few more questions, after reading them and your example in that other thread:

1) In the example you give in the other thread (the Connie and the B'Rel), in the second example (when both ships are running at EMCON 2 and closing in on each other: Your chart shows that two ships - both at EMCON 2) would get a -5 to detect each other. Yet your example shows them each getting a +0 bonus. Am I reading something wrong here?

LOL! Six years later, we find are first mistake! No, you are right. What I must have done back then is cut and paste the test modifiers for each example with the intent of filling in the data for each and I screwed it up.

Both ships would have had a -5 modifier to the TN to detect each other, which would have made detection easier and degree of successes better.

2) I'm still not clear how you're getting the ranges and numbers for such long ranges. Table 7.7 shows increments of hundreds of thousands of kilometers, but your examples uses references to multiple Light Years. Aren't Light Years way, way longer and further away? I see the new chart (1.29) that shows what ranges ships can scan to at really long ranges (LY), but I still don't get how to translate that into game distances (short, medium, long, exended, etc.

Okay... this was a wonderful challenge that I had to put together from all books.

My range modifiers apply to all types of tests, whether they are tactical, sensor scans, or anything else that might be affected by distance. So you apply the relevant range band modifiers based on what is going on in your game.

If two ships are within thousands of kilometers of each other and are committing to combat, the range bands as listed in Table 7.7 on page 110 and my added modifiers apply to Tactical tests to Fire weapons. So at Extended range, the Tactical officer has a -6 penalty to attack roll.

If a ship is attempting a sensor scan sweep of an area from 1 LY to 20 LY (an entire sector sweep), the range bands in Table 1.29 of the Starships book are used and the appropriate modifiers apply per band. So at extended range (20 LY in low res, or 6 LY in hi res), a Sensor operator would have a -6 to his sensor test result.

In the first situation, it has a physical affect in the game because it determines whether a ship hits and does damage. In the second situation, it is more of a story element affect meaning it tells the Narrator the Degree of Success of the sensor scan and he/she may then give out as much or as little information that they want to for the story based on the result.

Does this make sense? If not, let me know and I will evolve what I am saying here with examples.

3) You mentioned that the Starships book mentions three states for Sensors: Passive, Intermittent, and Active. This sounds reasonable, but I can't find this in the book. Can you point me to that part?

It is not in the Starships sourcebook, it is in the Starfleet Operations Manual on page 6 in the section "Under Weigh". It is not stated in such clear terms, but it is stated...

that while "Under Weigh", a shipt primarily runs on long-range nav sensors and a full array of passive sensor systems. Depending on the mission, the captain may order a full sensor sweep every eight hours. On survey and scientific missions, the sensors are usually continuously active on all wavelengths.

Thus, I took from that - PASSIVE, INTERMITTENT, and ACTIVE and from that developed the EMCON modifiers based on the different rules from the different books. Believe me, it was not easy because the books seem to contradict themselves at times (as you already know).

Anyway, like I said, the house rule may still be buggy but feel free to work it how you want in your game. I use my rules but there are times when I need to modify based on the situation.

[Tomcat]

As Patrick said, you are welcome to visit my web forum, too, if you want to see how I handled game situations.

When you look at my Run Silent Run Deep board, you will see there are multiple rooms to play in. This is my way of simulating the ship... if a PC is down in engineering, all the posts and activites go in that section. The main story narrative and the bridge all take place in the section of that name. A PC cannot affect or communicate (unless they use a communication device) the story or another PC/NPC unless they are in the same part of the ship.

Anyway, look at the Main Story section - there you will find a lot of our combat rounds and maybe it will be of help.

http://rpg.avioc.org

[Doug Taylor]

Thanks! I hope they will be of use. I can say that after reading through them again after these past years, I can see where they might need more tweaking, so feel free to break them down and re-tool as needed. I'd love to see what changes you make, if any, so be sure and post them here.



LOL! Six years later, we find are first mistake! No, you are right. What I must have done back then is cut and paste the test modifiers for each example with the intent of filling in the data for each and I screwed it up.

Both ships would have had a -5 modifier to the TN to detect each other, which would have made detection easier and degree of successes better.




Okay... this was a wonderful challenge that I had to put together from all books.

My range modifiers apply to all types of tests, whether they are tactical, sensor scans, or anything else that might be affected by distance. So you apply the relevant range band modifiers based on what is going on in your game.

If two ships are within thousands of kilometers of each other and are committing to combat, the range bands as listed in Table 7.7 on page 110 and my added modifiers apply to Tactical tests to Fire weapons. So at Extended range, the Tactical officer has a -6 penalty to attack roll.

If a ship is attempting a sensor scan sweep of an area from 1 LY to 20 LY (an entire sector sweep), the range bands in Table 1.29 of the Starships book are used and the appropriate modifiers apply per band. So at extended range (20 LY in low res, or 6 LY in hi res), a Sensor operator would have a -6 to his sensor test result.

In the first situation, it has a physical affect in the game because it determines whether a ship hits and does damage. In the second situation, it is more of a story element affect meaning it tells the Narrator the Degree of Success of the sensor scan and he/she may then give out as much or as little information that they want to for the story based on the result.

Does this make sense? If not, let me know and I will evolve what I am saying here with examples.




It is not in the Starships sourcebook, it is in the Starfleet Operations Manual on page 6 in the section "Under Weigh". It is not stated in such clear terms, but it is stated...

that while "Under Weigh", a shipt primarily runs on long-range nav sensors and a full array of passive sensor systems. Depending on the mission, the captain may order a full sensor sweep every eight hours. On survey and scientific missions, the sensors are usually continuously active on all wavelengths.

Thus, I took from that - PASSIVE, INTERMITTENT, and ACTIVE and from that developed the EMCON modifiers based on the different rules from the different books. Believe me, it was not easy because the books seem to contradict themselves at times (as you already know).

Anyway, like I said, the house rule may still be buggy but feel free to work it how you want in your game. I use my rules but there are times when I need to modify based on the situation.

No, this all makes a lot of sense! I'll let you know how things work out once I start putting it all into practice.

Thanks again for all the helpful insight!

[Doug Taylor]

We've recently gone through some of this on the PBP game I'm involved in, Doug; as soon as I get some time, I'll find where the answers we settled on and send you a link.

Or, you can just go to the game forum and read through the threads on your own.

I've looked them over some, Patrick. I like how you folks write out your characters; it's VERY similar to how I do ours (with small summaries for each of the Edges and such).

Very good stuff!

[Doug Taylor]

Got a few more questions, inspired by some testing out of the system.

First I played out three turns of our ship (an Akira-class vessel) against the enemy ship I plan on introducing in the first encounter. Next I ran four turns of combat between a Vorcha-class Klingon battleship and the Enterprise (with my son playing the Klingon ship, just for fun). I even used the published stats for Picard, LaForge, Worf, etc. to simulate things. FWIW, our ship did just fine against the ship I threw up against it (did about as intended), and the Klingon ship had the Enterprise on the ropes after four rounds (shields completely down, structure down to 15).

Here's some questions that came up:

1) Being as one side sometimes reveals their maneuver picks after the other side, it creates some strange situations. One time it was a person's turn to Close, but by that point (due to moves by the opponent) both ships were at Point Blank range from each other. Does that maneuver just get essentially wasted? (I suppose there's still room - hundreds or thousands of kilometers - for them to close/move towards each other).

2) A related question to #1 - what if one side picks some Tier 2 maneuvers, reveals them, and then (before they get the chance to move) they get hit with the "No Tier 2 maneuvers" on the System Damage Chart? Are those moves (already selected) just wasted? Or would/should it be allowable to pick the simpler (Tier 1) equivalents of what they were trying to do, if possible (Fire instead of Multifire, for example)?

3) If one ship successfully uses the Disengage maneuver, should they then be able to use another action to hit Warp Speed and leave the area? I would suppose the other ship (if sensors are still working) could choose to follow them (this happened all the time on the show), but as written the rules are kind of vague on how much the Disengage maneuver actually "disengages" you from the vessel a ship is in conflict with.

4) Maneuvers like Hard About give you a bonus to your ship's Protection (in this case, +5). Since this is defined as Instant, I would suppose that this bonus only applies for that immediate combat turn, right? Or at least for one enemy action (if your ship moved second), perhaps bleeding over into the next turn? In other words, I realize it's an instant thing, and not meant to give you a permanent bonus, but how long exactly should that bonus last?

None of these are major issues, and they're ones I can easily make the call on as a veteran GM. I see them as minor situations, but still ones that I'd appreciate input from some of you veterans of the CODA Star Trek system, in case you've dealt with similar situations before or seen answers from netreps (or errata that I missed).

As always, I appreciate the insight you all provide!

[Nolmir]

Well, in my experience, the simplest answer to questions 1 and 2 is to allow the second acting ship to pick their maneuvers after the first ship acts. In cases where they have to reveal a maneuver before they act, just force them to pick one manuever that they will use no matter what. Or, you can interpret it as the other ship anticipates what they intend to do, taking actions to mess up their plan, in which case they have to do something else.

Hope that helps.