Using the Trillion Credit Rules, the 19,999 ton cruiser with M-6/J-4 and Meson J, and the 74,999 ton battleship with M-6/J4 and Meson T, beat the crap out of anything else in the universe. Bigger ships were meat to the Meson T. So my players rules lawyered the TCS rules, and as long as the ships were 1 ton under the break points for combat they "met" the criteria. Some of my players could rules lawyer as well as any Harvard trained Lawyer.
All you need are these two ships
- Thread starter Murph
- Start date
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Good news, the latest design rules may allow you to incorporate both in one platform, or multiples.
Those sorts of manipulations of rules should be crushed, with brutal efficiency, and no mercy...... 
I get the general idea.. min/maxing for maximum return/rules exploitation is an old trick...no system can be proof to a clever rules layer..that's why the final decision rests with the GM/Ref...who has the right to say..."no", Hell No!, and "Over my dead body"...
I get the general idea.. min/maxing for maximum return/rules exploitation is an old trick...no system can be proof to a clever rules layer..that's why the final decision rests with the GM/Ref...who has the right to say..."no", Hell No!, and "Over my dead body"...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I disagree.
First, if you have jump 4 and maneuver/agility 6 you are going to have to skimp on armour, which means missile boats and PA spinals will spoil your day.
bridge 2%
md6 17%
jd4+f 45%
pp7+f 14%
total = 78%,
that's 4,399t left for you J spinal and the power plant to power it for your 19.999kt ship, that's another 2,800 tons so you have 1599t left to pad out the weapon USP, crew, screens and armour.
16,499t left for the T spinal plus power plant and fuel for the 74.999kt ship, that's 9400 tons so you have 7,099 left for the remainder of your ship.
Second, the meson gun has a lousy to hit and penetrate chance, even if you manage to close range to short so that you get the to hit bonus.
Last edited:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Oh, and you missed the other munchkin class breakpoint - the 1999t escort...
If you are going to have size breakpoints then you have to be prepared for people to build at or close to them - but the benefit of doing so isn't as great as you think it is. All it really does is bring an awful lot of 19000t, 19000t and 74000t ships to the tournament.
There may be other factors to consider - cost and number of available pilots to name but a couple. For a campaign game like the Islands cluster (but increased to TL15) then to maximise the number of J mesons in your fleet you will want to build as small and cheap a ship as you can get away with that can carry it and still be effective - very limited armour and screens remember so you will have to hope you get lucky before your ships are mission disabled by 1900t missile boats or 70kt PA spinals.
Where would you move the breakpoints to, and would you adjust the target hull size modifier?
If you are going to have size breakpoints then you have to be prepared for people to build at or close to them - but the benefit of doing so isn't as great as you think it is. All it really does is bring an awful lot of 19000t, 19000t and 74000t ships to the tournament.
There may be other factors to consider - cost and number of available pilots to name but a couple. For a campaign game like the Islands cluster (but increased to TL15) then to maximise the number of J mesons in your fleet you will want to build as small and cheap a ship as you can get away with that can carry it and still be effective - very limited armour and screens remember so you will have to hope you get lucky before your ships are mission disabled by 1900t missile boats or 70kt PA spinals.
Where would you move the breakpoints to, and would you adjust the target hull size modifier?
The problem isn't so much with the breakpoints, its with the dice. +1 on different areas of the 2-12 bell curve have much more dramatic effects than a +1 on a linear curve (like a D10 or D20).
The solution is really to change the dice and how they're used, thus diminishing the impact of breakpoints.
The ones mentioned here are both gaming the size DM.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I still don't see how...
a meson J vs a ship with a #9 screen and needle configuration:
4 to hit, raised to 10 because of target agility, -1 for size (assuming you are shooting up a 20000-74999t cruiser) so a 9+ is needed to hit - 28%
You then need to roll 9+ to penetrate the screen - 28%
and finally a roll of 6+ to penetrate the configuration - 72%
Not good odds - 6% of your shots will get through.
So lets say you have a fleet with 20 of the things so you can get one meson hit per turn.
I have a 40kt cruiser fleet with #P spinal PAs and missile bays - I can afford ten of them to your 20 19.9kt munchkin class.
I hit you on a 7+ and cause 4 critical hits since you have no armour.
58% of my ships hit your fleet - you lose without significantly lucky dice rolls on your side and very unlucky ones on mine.
a meson J vs a ship with a #9 screen and needle configuration:
4 to hit, raised to 10 because of target agility, -1 for size (assuming you are shooting up a 20000-74999t cruiser) so a 9+ is needed to hit - 28%
You then need to roll 9+ to penetrate the screen - 28%
and finally a roll of 6+ to penetrate the configuration - 72%
Not good odds - 6% of your shots will get through.
So lets say you have a fleet with 20 of the things so you can get one meson hit per turn.
I have a 40kt cruiser fleet with #P spinal PAs and missile bays - I can afford ten of them to your 20 19.9kt munchkin class.
I hit you on a 7+ and cause 4 critical hits since you have no armour.
58% of my ships hit your fleet - you lose without significantly lucky dice rolls on your side and very unlucky ones on mine.
Mike, its been 20+ years since my group did this, so I can't recall exactly how they came up with it, but they did, and it was uber annoying. IIRC they were TL 15 ships, with the best mods possible for what they were doing. Again the players really Min/Max'ed the rules to come up with a "perfect" fleet mix. I had forgotten the 1,999 ton "destroyer/Frigate" ships. AAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaarrrrggghhhh! They caused me fits.
A 19,999 J Meson Needle cruiser with J4/M6/Agi 6, Model 9/fib computer, and #9 screen can have a total of 1 armor, no weapons, no vehicles. It has a Power Plant 13, and costs 16867MCr.
A Rider model (forgoing the J Drive and fuel) is 6423 DT w/15 Armor. It costs: 8389MCr.
The 74,999 T Meson cruiser has 3 armor, and room for 10 50t bays for missiles (no real power for anything else and keep Agi 6).
it costs 56941MCr.
You can cram a J Meson in to 15 Armor, Agi 6 boat -- but it comes out at around 210,000Dt.
The unarmored ships would be burned to a cinder by a bunch of smaller ships with nothing but BLasers and missiles. They may not "kill" the ship, but they'd knock that big gun down to scrap in no time, making the ship combat ineffective.
The 15 Armor Rider is immune to anything but Spinals, initially, but once hit by a spinal, the armor damage would make them vulnerable to turret fire, which could quickly reduce the gun.
A Rider model (forgoing the J Drive and fuel) is 6423 DT w/15 Armor. It costs: 8389MCr.
The 74,999 T Meson cruiser has 3 armor, and room for 10 50t bays for missiles (no real power for anything else and keep Agi 6).
it costs 56941MCr.
You can cram a J Meson in to 15 Armor, Agi 6 boat -- but it comes out at around 210,000Dt.
The unarmored ships would be burned to a cinder by a bunch of smaller ships with nothing but BLasers and missiles. They may not "kill" the ship, but they'd knock that big gun down to scrap in no time, making the ship combat ineffective.
The 15 Armor Rider is immune to anything but Spinals, initially, but once hit by a spinal, the armor damage would make them vulnerable to turret fire, which could quickly reduce the gun.
CliffBates
SOC-12
This is why one needs must have Escorts in BatRons and CurRons and the escorts ought to be between 2 to 4 per Capital Ship/Cruiser. Yes Escorts die but that is their job... they die so the Cap Ships live and kill other Cap Ships.
Meh, you are wasting your credits. On turn two you will not have any Meson-T/J left, they will all be degraded.
The smarter rules lawyer does this with much cheaper craft without spinal weapons.
I consider it a Good Thing that these issues are still being discussed, however, is it a good thing that efficacy is still being argued?
At least it helps to know the goal of a designed ship. For example, some designs (no armor) would be ideal for being part of an overwhelming ambush, while other designs (armor and auxiliaries) would be ideal for a clash of evenly matched war fleets.
At least it helps to know the goal of a designed ship. For example, some designs (no armor) would be ideal for being part of an overwhelming ambush, while other designs (armor and auxiliaries) would be ideal for a clash of evenly matched war fleets.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The fact that the efficacy is still being argued shows that the rules are a lot cleverer then most people give them credit.
Over the weekend I began writing my opus on how the nature of battle fleets change as you advance through the HG TL scale - so far I have mapped out the technology advances by TL, the next step is to suggest optimised design choices or at least decisions that must be made by the admirals ordering these ships to be built.
For instance you can make any ship at most TLs immune to spinal PA critical by either making the ship as big as the maximum PA for that TL or use armour to mitigate crits and build smaller hulls.
Over the weekend I began writing my opus on how the nature of battle fleets change as you advance through the HG TL scale - so far I have mapped out the technology advances by TL, the next step is to suggest optimised design choices or at least decisions that must be made by the admirals ordering these ships to be built.
For instance you can make any ship at most TLs immune to spinal PA critical by either making the ship as big as the maximum PA for that TL or use armour to mitigate crits and build smaller hulls.
Last edited:
Too clever by half, if we're still making mistakes.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The main mistakes made are due to not actually playing the game, and by that I mean building fleets at different TLs and fighting battles with them.
There is no killer design at any TL, what you always need is a balanced fleet design, knowledge of your opponent's ship design choices are important too.
There is no killer design at any TL, what you always need is a balanced fleet design, knowledge of your opponent's ship design choices are important too.
The tournament data disagrees. The "Wave Attack" had to be specially ruled against not to be the optimal strategy.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The tournament data is flawed as others have already pointed out, not to mention we have an awful lot more data available now.
Several of the winning fleet designs published in JTAS could be easily countered, if you knew the designs ahead of time. Part of the fun is not knowing what your opponent will design and bring to the table.
And also note that none of the winning fleets in the JTAS consisted of only one ship type.
Several of the winning fleet designs published in JTAS could be easily countered, if you knew the designs ahead of time. Part of the fun is not knowing what your opponent will design and bring to the table.
And also note that none of the winning fleets in the JTAS consisted of only one ship type.
And I will add that the tournaments were swayed by largely novices on one side and Lenat on the other having the benefit of hundreds of games worth of computer assisted experience.
Similar threads
