• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Rethinking Dreadnought Design

Hans, while you are cruising about in the INS Verisimilitude, pray, which version is the truth?
None of them are the complete truth, because you can't describe the entire truth about a universe, so simplifications are needed. And with simplifications comes deviations from the truth. But the truth involves big tough TL15 battleships and medium-sized vulnerable cruisers.


Hans
 
If not backed up by Library data then it's just your personal opinion. But I happen to know which bits of Library Data and S9 keep colouring your thinking on this - and as I have said, the 'truth' is very different.
And as I've said, the truth is not different.

Now what? I can keep this up just as long as you can. Isn't it about time we stopped regurgitating the same arguments over and over again?

But the setting info is fluff, and doesn't bear examination in the same way as Aslan being a major race is setting info...
Not all setting info is fluff. There's a big difference between setting info that is held in authorial voice an setting info that is viewpoint writing.

Rules, on the other hand, are invariable simplified and never express the complete truth (unless they're rules for emulating things that are as simple as coin tosses). :devil:


Hans
 
So, assuming for purposes of argument that we'd like to amend the HG2 rules to conform to the definitions in FS, what would be good ideas? And can we get some of our resident TCS experts to test these rules?

Here are my suggestions:

Meson screens receive a bonus to their factor of +1 for ships with size codes Q and R, +2 for size codes S and T, +3 for size codes U and V, +4 for size codes W and X and +5 for size code Y.

'Fuel tank shattered' result on the interior explosion damage table is changed to '50,000T of fuel tanks shattered'.

Ships of size Q and above receive a saving throw of 2 on 2D to ignore each critical hits. Each size above Q gets a saving throw one higher (so size Y has a saving throw of 10).

Obviously these rules may not work as intended.


Hans
 
Lol.

Here's another thought. The 3rd Imperium setting was retconned to make it a HG large ship universe. Why do that if the rules in HG don't describe combat in the setting?

If there is one canon question I would like answered before I shuffle off this mortal coil it is this - why were there 2 versions of HG in development at the same time and why did HG1 get released if it wasn't the preferred choice?

It wasn't. The design notes indicate that HG 1 was done in 1978... and released in early 79. HG2 was the "OMG, we should have playtested HG1 more" reaction in-house - someone pointed out the flaw in the rating system of HG1.
(The design mechanics differ in bay sizes and rating the designs, but the design systems are compatible, and characters are unchanged.)
HG 2 appears to have been mid 1980 - long enough for initial feedback of the "WTF???" kind from players. Especially since GDW typeset in-house - they could (and did) get product from final draft to press to distribution in under 6 weeks.
 
My actual, original thought here is not quite to talk about a new version of High Guard, but rather a simplified way of designing (and fighting) HG2 ships. It's clear that some of the weapons on Big ships are only used in an abstract way; therefore they should be designed a bit more abstractly as well.

It matters to me because I want to fight more than one battle in an afternoon: I want to replay a front from the Fifth Frontier War, or one fleet's march during the Barracks Emperors period. A lot of fights. And that requires more abstraction.

At the same time, I don't like the counters from Fifth Frontier War. Four or five values does not define a squadron in any way interesting to me.

But... you can almost define a ship with eight parameters or so, such as

Mission code
Hull configuration
Movement rating
Jump Rating
Main weapon rating
Secondaries rating
Defense rating
Carried craft
 
I'll go one further: I think what I'm thinking about is not a rewrite of High Guard, but of a notation and combat system which is less detailed than High Guard and more detailed than Fifth Frontier War. You might call it "Operational Design" or "Squadron Combat Mode" or a fleet combat system, maybe.

In other words, you take a High Guard ship design -- or perhaps a task force of complementary ships -- run it through the Fleet Grinder, and out pops either a "small design sheet" or a "large counter", depending on how you look at it.


Not Fifth Frontier War

It's not four numbers and a code, as in Fifth Frontier War. If you don't know FFW, a counter has a minimal set of elements:

OFFENSE, DEFENSE, BOMB (ortillery/assault, that is) (or alternately a TRANSPORT number if it's not a combatant), a Jump number, and a classification (BB = Battleship).

This gives you a simple set of rules for combat, and ignores tactical considerations completely.


Somewhere In Between

But it's not fifty line items, either. It's in between. Call it eight numbers and two codes, or something.

I can then take two dozen of those Large Counters and play them against my friend's two dozen Large Counters on a hexmat.


Elements

Here are the elements I think are important for that level of a game:

  • Mission code - this gives the system wiggle room to use special rules.
  • Hull configuration code - this is used to refine unit mission, as well as shed light on logistics and defense.
  • Movement rating - this is a combination of maneuver and agility.
  • Jump Rating
  • Main weapon - a variety to represent tactical needs.
  • Secondaries - similar to the main weapon, this is used to fine-tune tactical requirements.
  • Defense ratings - mainly to account for varying capabilities.
  • Carried craft/troops/whatever

Even TL might not be necessary, assuming that all of the above take TL into account.


Prototype set of designs for consideration:

Code:
Key:
Kt = kilotons.  
Pri=primary weapon.  
Sec=secondary weapon(s).  
Def=defenses.  
Secondary weapon M=Missile bays.
M=acceleration.  J=jump.
mJ=Meson spine J, et al.
Lt=light.  Ba=basic.  St=Standard.  GG=Good.  XL=Strong.
HF=50t heavy fighters.  
T=Troops.  T++=Piles of troops.  
BR=Battle Riders.

Name & Mission            Kt  BCr Pri Sec  Def M  J
---------------------------------------------------------------
Midu Agashaam Destroyer   3   3   no  PA   Lt  6+ 4
PF Sloan Fleet Escort     5   4   no  PA   Lt  6+ 4
Kinunir Colonial Cruiser  1.3 1   no  no   Lt  6+ 4
Gionetti Light Cruiser    30  23  mJ  no   Ba  5+ 5
Arakoine Strike Cruiser   50  35  mN  PA,M St  4+ 4
Ghalalk Armored Cruiser   50  35  pH  M    Ba  5+ 4
Lighting Frontier Cruiser 60  43  pN  M    Ba  2  5
Atlantic Heavy Cruiser    75  59  mN  PA   St  5+ 4
Skimkish Light Carrier    29  20  no  lots Ba  2  4  80 HF
Wind Strike Carrier       75  58  mE  M    GG  6+ 3  80 HF
Antiama Fleet Carrier    100  65  no  PA   GG  2  4  300 HF
Tigress Dreadnaught BC   500 453  mT  M    XL  6+ 4  300 HF T++
Plankwell Dreadnaught BC 200 150  mT  M    St  5+ 4
Kokirrak Dreadnaught BC  200 169  mT  M    St  6+ 4  1000 T
Troyhune Monitor          50  22  mJ  no   St  6+ -  20 HF
Lurenti Battle Carrier   300  23  no  lots GG  2  4  200 HF  7 BR
Nolikian Battle Rider BRC 20  12  mN  lots St? 6+ -

I do see some tradeoffs going on here. Lose the jump fuel and everything else gets a big boost, at a low price. Volume ~ price, when all else is equal. There is always improvement for defenses, but weapons will hit a ceiling.

And, of course, all designs are considered error-ridden.
 
Last edited:
Today, I'm going to try it with business cards.

Because every place I work at, I get a box of 500 business cards, and I never use more than 50 of them before new boxes come out.

So I have hundreds of standard-sized-but-small cards, waiting to be used. And they're too small to cram lots of data into. I'll be forced to get creative.

An opportunity.
 
I'll go one further: I think what I'm thinking about is not a rewrite of High Guard, but of a notation and combat system which is less detailed than High Guard and more detailed than Fifth Frontier War. You might call it "Operational Design" or "Squadron Combat Mode" or a fleet combat system, maybe.

In other words, you take a High Guard ship design -- or perhaps a task force of complementary ships -- run it through the Fleet Grinder, and out pops either a "small design sheet" or a "large counter", depending on how you look at it.


Not Fifth Frontier War

It's not four numbers and a code, as in Fifth Frontier War. If you don't know FFW, a counter has a minimal set of elements:

OFFENSE, DEFENSE, BOMB (ortillery/assault, that is) (or alternately a TRANSPORT number if it's not a combatant), a Jump number, and a classification (BB = Battleship).

This gives you a simple set of rules for combat, and ignores tactical considerations completely.


Somewhere In Between

But it's not fifty line items, either. It's in between. Call it eight numbers and two codes, or something.

I can then take two dozen of those Large Counters and play them against my friend's two dozen Large Counters on a hexmat.


Elements

Here are the elements I think are important for that level of a game:

  • Mission code - this gives the system wiggle room to use special rules.
  • Hull configuration code - this is used to refine unit mission, as well as shed light on logistics and defense.
  • Movement rating - this is a combination of maneuver and agility.
  • Jump Rating
  • Main weapon - a variety to represent tactical needs.
  • Secondaries - similar to the main weapon, this is used to fine-tune tactical requirements.
  • Defense ratings - mainly to account for varying capabilities.
  • Carried craft/troops/whatever

Even TL might not be necessary, assuming that all of the above take TL into account.


Prototype set of designs for consideration:

I'd suggest (IIRC I've already suggested time ago in another thread) to also use other codes for additional info (e.g. if the jump number is circled, ship is skimming capable, if defense is circled, they have black globe, if something like rule in page 19 FFW rules is used, etc...).

This will allow you to put some extra info without using extra space.
 
Missiles, Missiles, Missiles
Magic Munchkin Missile Magazines

Your Spinal Meson isn't going to be full factor for long. For that matter your Meson Armed ships aren't going to be around very long if committed to the line prematurely.

Actually, you'd be surprised.

My TL 15 BRs mount J meson guns, carry Armour-15, have agility 6 and Factor-9 Nuclear Dampers. And they do all of that in the size B-K range. They've got at least one weapon in every category, too.

Let's assume you're packing TL15 missile bays, 50 tons a piece, Factor-9.

All other things being equal, At long range you need an 8 to hit. So 15 in 36 of your missiles score a hit.

You'd better be firing nukes, because HE is just going to bounce off my armour (a bit like shooting at a Matilda with anything less than an 88). I might interfere with one or two of your missiles with my sand, energy weapons and lasers. I'll definitely turn one of them back with my repulsor. But we're looking at proportions. So let's ignore them and cut to the chase.

15 / 36 of the missiles you fire register a hit. They're nukes, so they've got to penetrate my Nuclear Damper. That needs a 10. Only 1 in 6 of them do that. So that's only 5 in 72 that progress as far as getting a roll on the damage tables. It's only worth bothering with the surface explosion table ... my armour is impervious to your radiation.

Even with your -6 for nukes, I'm still adding +15 to your rolls for my armour, and that means only rolls of 2 - 6 produce any damage; and only rolls of 2, 3, 5 or 6 produce a weapon hit. That's one in 3.

So 5 in 216 of the missile salvoes you fire will score a weapon hit. Call it 1 in 43.

You get to choose which weapon is hit, and doubtless you will choose to go for my meson gun first; but after that you've got to go for my other four offensive and two defensive weapon types before you're allowed to ask for a second hit on my meson gun.

So if you fire 344 salvoes of missiles, you'll manage two hits on my meson gun, reducing it from J to G.

Those salvoes are coming from bay weapons ... so 344 salvoes implies 344,000 ton-turns of ships.

My BRs are 16,000 tons, if I recall correctly. So 344,000 ton-turns allows me 21 and a bit shots with my meson guns. Let's ignore the bits, and see what 21 shots will do for me.

Assume you're agility 6 ... so I need a 10 to hit. That means 1 in 6 hits. So it's a toss-up whether I've achieved 3 or 4 hits. Have you got factor 9 meson screens too? Let's assume you have. I need a 9 to penetrate. 10 times in 36 I will. So I should get about 1 penetration.

What's your configuration? Needle-wedge? (I assume you're not a dispersed structure, or you can't mount any armour at all). I need a 6 to penetrate needle/wedge. Two times in 3 I will. Odds are, then, that by the time you've chewed two points off one of my meson spinals, in an equal tonnage-for-tonnage fight, I've scored a hit on one of your ships. And that his is going to blat it outright. I've also got my own missiles doing a bit of damage here, a bit of damage there, and pulling down your own offensive firepower.

I don't know what you're mounting your missiles in, but it doesn't really matter. If you're going for big ships, my riders will make mincemeat of them on a ton-for-ton basis, even after allowing for the unproductive weight of the mother ship. If you're pitching a massed phalanx of 2,000 ton missile destroyers against, me, then that might be a different matter, because each hit I score will only knock out a tiny fraction of your fighting strength.

But ... oh dear!! In that case, we've just proved my point, haven't we??

At TL 15 it's no longer the case that your big ships are the battle winners, any more than that in 21st wet navy combat your battleships are battle winners.
 
And if I win the initiative and manage to close the range to short, let's see what happens then.

Your missiles now need a 9 to hit. Only 10 in 36 do that.

They still need a 10 to penetrate my Nuclear Damper, and only 1 in 6 will do that ... so only 10 in 216 of the missiles you fire will result in a hit. Of those, only 1 in 3 results in a weapon hit, so that's 10 in 648 ... call it 2 in 129. And to make it to your second hit on one of my spinal mesons you're going to have to fire 516 salvoes of missiles.

516,000 ton-turns for me is the equivalent to 32 and a bit shots. We'll call it 32.

My "to hit" is now 8. I achieve that with 15 / 36 shots ... so my 29 shots produce 13 and a bit hits. Call it 13. Only 10 in 36 penetrate your meson screen, so let's call that 3 penetrations. And one of them won't get through your configuration. So now I'm blatting 2 of your ships for each two pips knocked off my spinal meson.

And still my other weapons are doing you damage, too.

OK ... I agree that there is slow degradation of my meson weaponry going on, and that this will slowly reduce my hits as I have to start rolling 10 or 11 to get through your meson screens.

But if I have them in the line "prematurely", as you say, you will be having ships torn limb from limb right from the off, even at long range ... and you will really begin to feel the heat when I get a chance to close the range.

Oh yeah ... and when you win the initiative and open out the range again, I can board your derelicts and capture your hulls, too :D
 
Amber

I'm not sure where you got the idea I advocate for large ships. As a matter of fact I'm quite the opposite.

I will never* put a ship in the line larger than 10kdt (size "K"). These will be BRs and Meson "J" or "N" depending on other factors (whim if I'm honest about it.;)), or, 12.5kdt (size "K") Particle "P" (these will be a small number and only present depending on the intelligence allowed, if any, on the opposing fleet).

Armor 14, Screens 9, Agility 6, Comp 9fib, etc.

Missile ships will be 1.8-9kdt (Size "A"), one 50dt bay each. (there is also a good argument for 1kdt ships here...)

Armor 11, Damper 9, Agility 6, Comp 9fib, etc. > If required to have a J4 fleet

(J4 FLEETS are a foolish waste in a campaign game.)

* there are of course exceptions to every rule...​

The big point Mike Wightman and I were making is the foolishness of large ships in HG2 combat and sticking those in the line. If the competition rules require big ships, I maintain that they be no bigger than needed to mount their main weapon.
 
Vladika -

Sorry if I had you on the wrong side ... I don't always read all the way through this thread to remind myself who stands where before posting.

Armour 15 if you can find the weight for it ... in order to reduce still further the number of hits those pesky nukes can do.



I'm working on the theory of the TL15 buffered planetoid with 14 factors of added armour, though.

Even nukes can't harm it ... but to get it down to a decent size, you've got to make it low G. That doesn't matter against the nukes (let them hit it) ... but it does create problems with the incoming mesons.

There must be a "sweet spot" somewhere at which the better "to hit" modifier for the lower size more than compensates for the greater vulnerability of the lower agility ... but I've yet to find it.

I strongly SUSPECT, however, that it is beneath the size at which you can fit a spinal, even at TL15.

And THAT conjours up the prospect of a ship impervious to EVERYTHING, which can only be armed with missiles ... with which it can hurt, however slightly, everything but itself.

And then we find ourselves in an interstellar Hampton Roads, do we not? :file_21:
 
And then we find ourselves in an interstellar Hampton Roads, do we not? :file_21:

If you want to attack Hampton Roads you could, with ease, do in with conventional missiles deployed in Containers. Container ships pass less than 1000 yards from EVERY navy vessel at NOB.

Should an enterprising party care to eliminate up to four carriers at one strike, that's the way to do it.

(I have given away no national secret here. The USN has lived in fear of this for decades. It was a Cold War Era nightmare.)
 
Note that the Imperial admiralty is only just learning these lessons, A TL13-14 fleet fights very differently to a well designed TL15 fleet.

The Imperium fighting against TL14 neighbours doesn't help them learn these lessons any faster - due to the superiority of a TL15 BB vs TL14 opponents the admirals - and popular Imperial media - still think the BB is the king of the hill.
 
Note that the Imperial admiralty is only just learning these lessons...
Note that this doesn't make sense. Leaving aside that more than a century should be enough to learn these lessons, the basic lesson that a ship fighting meson guns should be no bigger than necessary must be 3000 years old. A TL14 battleship may need to be bigger than 100,000T, but it's still not going to be bigger than absolutely necessary.

Unless there's a combat advantage to be gained from sheer size, of course.


Hans
 
Note that this doesn't make sense. Leaving aside that more than a century should be enough to learn these lessons, the basic lesson that a ship fighting meson guns should be no bigger than necessary must be 3000 years old. A TL14 battleship may need to be bigger than 100,000T, but it's still not going to be bigger than absolutely necessary.

Unless there's a combat advantage to be gained from sheer size, of course.

Hans

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that the Imperium should've figured out -- and quickly -- that TL15 cruisers can pummel anything TL14 and lower, perhaps due to research, but probably due to seeing it happen with all the skirmishings they do with their neighbors. Yes?
 
Back
Top