Ship size, ship shape, and target aspect.

[Outsider]

The Hero System handles targetting large objects by deducting 2 from their DCV for each doubling of all dimensions.

 

Thus a cube 10 meters on a side will have 'X' DCV, while one 20 meters on a side will have 'X'-2 DCV.

 

From any given direction, the 10 meter cube will present 100 square meters of target surface (more or less) while the 20 meter one will present 400 square meters.

 

But what is to keep the engineers of the 20 meter cube from designing it not as a 20 meter cube, but as a 10x10x80 'cigar'? Same volume, same 'size', but it presents a 100 square meter target area from some aspects, and a 800 square meter one from others. Theoretically, this should give it the same DCV from the 100 sq. meter aspects as the 10 meter cube, while, of course, giving it that-3 from all other aspects. A ship designer might actually want to do this for ships intended for certain roles, such as assault on a fixed point, or ships that are likely to encounter only single opponents.

 

From a game perspective, allowing ship shape to influence DCV (presuming people use it) would provide some pressure to do more than 'stack and attack' as far as tactical formations go. Splitting one's force would result in the enemy fleet being at a significant DCV penalty against one wing or the other.

 

Anyway, just a thought.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Ship size, ship shape, and target aspect.

 

Cool idea. There is the small problem of oblique angles, where the cigar would show less than 800 sq. meters, but more than 100. The "average" angle of attack should work out to about the same DCV penalty as a more compact shape with the same Size characteristic.

 

This could translate into some pretty interesting ship design. Needle shaped assault ships, with heavy armor on their small sides, as opposed to fortress ships of blocky shape and more even armor scheme.

[Outsider]

Re: Ship size, ship shape, and target aspect.

 

Yeah, the oblique thing makes it mathematically iffy, unless one is willing to round some things. On a needle shaped ship, perhaps anyone shooting at it from the front or rear 60 degree arc is declared to be hitting the 'small side', whereas anyone firing from the other 240 degrees gets the easier shot. Anyone firing from an 'altitude' or 'submerged position' greater than half the needle ship's distance from them above or below the map grid would also get the easier shot (assuming the needle ship's nose is on the plane of the grid) IE I may be 100 hexes directly ahead of the needle, but im also 55 hexes above it, which puts me outside the 60% cone ahead where it has better DCV.

 

Another thing this would encourage would be the use of Indirect advantage on some weapons. Yes, I have a poor shot at the assault ship bearing down on me, but the hyper-velocity missiles with the bomb-pumped laser warheads can be fired such that they go off when passing my enemy to port or starboard, throwing the beams into his easy to hit, more lightly protected sides...

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Ship size, ship shape, and target aspect.

 

I think this could be balanced with "Combat Value Shifting" allow the Vehicle to have +1 DCV from one angle, and -1 DCV from another, at no cost. Thus your "cigar-shaped" vessel could be +2 DCV from the front or rear, but -1 DCV from the top, bottom, or sides.

[dbsousa]

Re: Ship size, ship shape, and target aspect.

 

This could be a power: Streamlined Design, +X DCV, only protects 60degree arc.

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Ship size, ship shape, and target aspect.

 

various versions of traveller addressed this issue to an extent, with hull configuration having an effect on the hit of various weapons.

 

Traveller the New Era also had a chart for figuring changes to volume/dimensions based on hull configuration. I think I may have posted this table to the boards in the distant past. if its really wanted I could post it again if somebody thinks its useful.

[Victor]

Re: Ship size, ship shape, and target aspect.

 

Concealment (from Combat Modifiers table, p.247 of FRED) is probably a better way to go than buying limited arc DCV levels, IMO. It's just the nature of it's form, that part of it is "concealed" from certain angles.

 

The simple version:

If you're firing at the tip of a needle/cigar, it's -4.

An oblique shot at the same would be -2.

A shot at it's broad side is -0.

 

For an airfoil/wedge or a flattened sphere, you probably get a -2 from any lateral attack angle, -0 from above/below, and maybe a -1 for an oblique.

 

 

There's no real need in HERO to turn a vehicle's broad side to the enemy in order to attack with maximum effect, which is a shame. Without it, we lose "the dance". For that, though, we'd either need a system which requires surface area for weapons according to their size (which aside from missiles bought as vehicles, they don't have), or an unspoken agreement that ships have rational limits on weapon arcs, and adhere to them. Given that TUV is already out, I doubt we'll see the former. Going by published ships, we don't have the latter (at least, not consistantly).

 

The only idea that comes to mind to "fix" it, is to treat the ships' weapons as members of a Mass Combat Unit (with the ship's DEF, SPD, CV, etc.), and play out combats between ships with a few variations on the Mass Combat System in FH5.

 

Primarily, you'd need to be able to "Conceal" part of your formation of ship's weapons behind the rest of the ship, and you'd need to be able to conceal yourself from the enemy's weapons by taking advantage of THEIR orientation.

 

You might also need some means of attacking the other ship's engines, or shield generators, or other systems, depending on the feel you're after in a fight. I don't have an off-the-cuff idea for that, though, unless you just treat them as unarmed members of that unit, there for the sake of determining casualties.

 

It should create combats where ships lose their ability to fight through accumulated battle damage, without having to actually destroy every last BODY pip of the ship. The larger scale also allows more emphasis on relative velocities and orientation, rather than detailed movement, but without completely eliminating it.