Back-up Meson Screens, Nuclear Dampers, and Force Fields

[snrdg082102]

Morning all,

My search of the forums has once again produced more results or no results to the question:

Can you have back-up screens in HG?

I have just reconsidered having a back-up for the force field, aka black globe generators, and at least for that system I'm thinking the answer is no.

However, could the meson screen and nuclear damper have back-up systems and would they require a separate crew?

My first thought is Yes, then after checking the forums and erratum I wasn't sure.

If screens can have back-up systems would they require separate crews?

If back-up screen systems are allowed I feel that they would not have separate crews from the primary. When I checked the latest consolidated CT errata I became unsure since the back-up engineering systems do require crews (see Note 1).

Note 1:
I'm not totally in agreement with the requirement that back-up engineering systems require a full crew of engineering types. In my opinion, and experience on ship's, the back-up systems are maintained by the primary systems engineering crew. On the ship and submarines I served on the back-up systems were tested, maintained, and operated on a schedule just like the primary systems by the Engineering Department. On the submarines being a sonar technician I got to do noise testing on their equipment to ensure that the systems were generating noises that might increase the boats detection risk. The engineers didn't care for sonar during the testing;-).

 

[far-trader]

Not having checked the latest errata for what it says my take is you're comparing apples to oranges in this case.

The primary drive systems and backup drives systems require Engineers equal to the total of the primary systems and backup systems to maintain them in ready condition. This is a maintenance level calculation. No matter how the drive systems are operated they all need maintenance. That sounds exactly like your experience as described.

The screens only require crew for the primary system to operate it. If you have backup screens to bring up when the primary is reduced or disabled you don't need more crew for it, the same crew originally calculated is used to operate it. This is an operational crew calculation. However many backups you have, only one is in operation at a time.

Maintenance is required for the whole, the primary unit AND the backup units.

Operation is required only for the primary unit NOT the backup units (until they are called into use to replace the primary unit and then become the primary themselves).

 

[Whipsnade]

Can you have back-up screens in HG?

Yes. The relevant rules are in TCS on page 15.

You can have back up jump drives, maneuver drives, power plants, computers, and screens. They must have a lower rating than the primary equipment and only come into use when the primary equipment's rating is lowered through damage to a point below that of the back up.

If screens can have back-up systems would they require separate crews?

They neither require separate crews or EPs

I'm not totally in agreement with the requirement that back-up engineering systems require a full crew of engineering types.

First and seeing as they don't separate crews, your "disagreement" is moot.

Second and as previously explained in your thread regarding medics, real world experience is only weakly applied in this case. The design rules are part of a game and as part of a game they are a necessarily simplified version of reality.

HG2 isn't Springsharp or even Fire, Fusion, and Steel. Among other things, it's actually usable.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Whipsnade,

Thanks for the reply and clarification.

I do not see in the rules on TCS page 15 that states clearly that the back-up system must be of a lower rating than the primary. The rules do state that the higher rated of the two systems is the one in operation. While having the same size back-up jump drive and/or maneuver drive would be nice the tonnage required would take away space so smaller ones would be a better choice. For the back-up power plant I might decide to go with the same size as the primary, unless of curse I need room for something else.

 

[snrdg082102]

Thanks Dan "far trader" Burns for the reply,

In short screens, with the probable exception of a black globe/force field generator, can have back-ups, again I missed the wording in TCS, and do not require a crew.

 

[Carlobrand]

Inasmuch as a black globe is lumped in among the screens, a purely literal interpretation of the TCS rule would suggest you can have a backup black globe. However, Book 5 describes black globes as "...recovered artifacts installed on a makeshift basis or experimental versions installed on tech
level 15 Imperial warships." Thus, whether you had a backup or not depends on whether a unit is available or not.

The globe's shunting absorbed power to the ship's jump drive capacitors (in High Guard) or to additional capacitors installed for the purpose: "The capacitors contained in the ship's jump drive may be used to store this energy; additional capacitors may also be purchased..." So, having more than one black globe doesn't mean you can absorb more - just means you've got a backup in case the primary takes damage. If a black globe is on and takes more power than the capacitors can hold, ship go boom - but there's nothing that says anything untoward happens if the black globe itself takes damage.

Inquiring minds want to know whether the ship would go boom if the jump drives were disabled while being used to store energy from the black globe. For that matter, if the ship needed to take two turns to accumulate power for jump, and the jump drives were disabled on the second turn, howcum the ship doesn't go boom? Where's my fireworks?

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Carlobrand,

My take is that the TL 15 Black Globes are experimental systems produced by TL 15 Imperium and other governments at the same level. Tech level 16+ are the recovered artifacts.

My apologies if I gave the impression that two black globes would be operating at the same time. My understanding is that only one is working and the second one powers up when the first one falls below the rating of the second one.

My take is that damage to the black globe reduces the amount of energy that can be shunted to the j-capacitors.

Yep, over charging the j-capacitors blows the ship up. The best information we have is that ships disappear and may arrive at a location very far away. My guess is that the ship's atoms are stuck in jump space.

Thanks for the reply.

Inasmuch as a black globe is lumped in among the screens, a purely literal interpretation of the TCS rule would suggest you can have a backup black globe. However, Book 5 describes black globes as "...recovered artifacts installed on a makeshift basis or experimental versions installed on tech
level 15 Imperial warships." Thus, whether you had a backup or not depends on whether a unit is available or not.

The globe's shunting absorbed power to the ship's jump drive capacitors (in High Guard) or to additional capacitors installed for the purpose: "The capacitors contained in the ship's jump drive may be used to store this energy; additional capacitors may also be purchased..." So, having more than one black globe doesn't mean you can absorb more - just means you've got a backup in case the primary takes damage. If a black globe is on and takes more power than the capacitors can hold, ship go boom - but there's nothing that says anything untoward happens if the black globe itself takes damage.

Inquiring minds want to know whether the ship would go boom if the jump drives were disabled while being used to store energy from the black globe. For that matter, if the ship needed to take two turns to accumulate power for jump, and the jump drives were disabled on the second turn, howcum the ship doesn't go boom? Where's my fireworks?

 

[Whipsnade]

I do not see in the rules on TCS page 15 that states clearly that the back-up system must be of a lower rating than the primary.

You're correct. I conflated the rules in the section with the example from the same. In the example, the back-up is of a lesser rating than the primary.

If I may touch on a somewhat tangential topic here, it is not readily obvious to people who haven't played HG2 with large numbers of large ships sporting large batteries, but "EP Accounting" is an important part of play.

Ships are normally designed with few if any "leftover" EPs; folks most often install a power plant just big enough to power every system while also providing for whatever agility can be achieved. Once power plant hits occur, the number of available EPs drop and players find themselves making EP "budget" choices in a process eerily similar to Star Fleet Battles. Another and seemingly odder result of damage occurs when the loss of weapon batteries frees up EPs.

Lose a 100dTon meson gun bay and you'll "gain" 200 EPs, loose a 100Dton PAW bay and you'll gain 60 EPs, lose that factor-8 fusion gun battery comprised of ten double turrets and you'll "gain" 40 EPs. While the number of EPs gained via battery losses is relatively small compared to the total EPs used aboard a large ship, those small amounts sometimes can be just enough to raise a ship's agility rating.

Any good ship card should have EP "budget" information along with the usual USP and other other descriptions. Such information would list how many EPs the power plant generates, how many EPs are lost with each power plant rating loss, how many EPs each battery type requires, how many EPs each screen requires, how many the computer requires, etc., etc.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Whipsnade,

Yipee, I'm now batting at 1 for 10 gillizion times at the plate. Thanks Whipsnade for the reply.

You're correct. I conflated the rules in the section with the example from the same. In the example, the back-up is of a lesser rating than the primary.

If I may touch on a somewhat tangential topic here, it is not readily obvious to people who haven't played HG2 with large numbers of large ships sporting large batteries, but "EP Accounting" is an important part of play.

The EP usage is not a tangent in my opinion and probably a something I would have asked about in the future. Computers, weapons, and screens are the primary EP users in Book 5 aka HG2.

Are you a Zho reading my mind? Where is my PSI Shield?

Ships are normally designed with few if any "leftover" EPs; folks most often install a power plant just big enough to power every system while also providing for whatever agility can be achieved. Once power plant hits occur, the number of available EPs drop and players find themselves making EP "budget" choices in a process eerily similar to Star Fleet Battles. Another and seemingly odder result of damage occurs when the loss of weapon batteries frees up EPs.

Lose a 100dTon meson gun bay and you'll "gain" 200 EPs, loose a 100Dton PAW bay and you'll gain 60 EPs, lose that factor-8 fusion gun battery comprised of ten double turrets and you'll "gain" 40 EPs. While the number of EPs gained via battery losses is relatively small compared to the total EPs used aboard a large ship, those small amounts sometimes can be just enough to raise a ship's agility rating.

Any good ship card should have EP "budget" information along with the usual USP and other other descriptions. Such information would list how many EPs the power plant generates, how many EPs are lost with each power plant rating loss, how many EPs each battery type requires, how many EPs each screen requires, how many the computer requires, etc., etc.

Good points and much to my dismay not doing EP budgeting until the game is in progress is something I'm guilty of. Thank you for the reminder to include the EP budget on the Ship Card.

 

[sabredog]

You're correct. I conflated the rules in the section with the example from the same. In the example, the back-up is of a lesser rating than the primary.

If I may touch on a somewhat tangential topic here, it is not readily obvious to people who haven't played HG2 with large numbers of large ships sporting large batteries, but "EP Accounting" is an important part of play.

Ships are normally designed with few if any "leftover" EPs; folks most often install a power plant just big enough to power every system while also providing for whatever agility can be achieved. Once power plant hits occur, the number of available EPs drop and players find themselves making EP "budget" choices in a process eerily similar to Star Fleet Battles. Another and seemingly odder result of damage occurs when the loss of weapon batteries frees up EPs.

Lose a 100dTon meson gun bay and you'll "gain" 200 EPs, loose a 100Dton PAW bay and you'll gain 60 EPs, lose that factor-8 fusion gun battery comprised of ten double turrets and you'll "gain" 40 EPs. While the number of EPs gained via battery losses is relatively small compared to the total EPs used aboard a large ship, those small amounts sometimes can be just enough to raise a ship's agility rating.

Any good ship card should have EP "budget" information along with the usual USP and other other descriptions. Such information would list how many EPs the power plant generates, how many EPs are lost with each power plant rating loss, how many EPs each battery type requires, how many EPs each screen requires, how many the computer requires, etc., etc.

I concur, and this is IMHO THE single most overlooked and important part of ship design in the game.

This EP surplus is something I've used for a long time when having fleet battles to overcome the Agility limitations that can happen when the ship is firing every weapon and has all its defenses up. I've had players gripe that they can't get a better agility rating while using their ship to its fullest capabilities, but part of the equation for EP management is also involved in the tactical considerations of the weapons ans shields used, plus the agility you have available.

So in the case of even an undamaged ship you could choose not to fire the spinal gun and have more EP for other things until you do. Or have the spinal gun be the THE BIG HONKING GUN and only use it if all the other weapons and shields have to come down for that shot, or the ship agility has to drop to get the extra EP needed. I have a few designs of smaller destroyers that have spinal guns that they can't fire unless the ship agility drops to 1 and/or they not use the laser and energy weapon batteries. This is also why my smaller capital ships (the ones with spinal guns) are so missile battery heavy - so they can have a good spinal ship-killer gun and high agility at the same time. And none of these choices are things that depend on damage happening - you can control all of these tings in a functional ship.

Like say, in Starblazers and the Yamato fires the Gravity-Wave Gun and all the systems dim while it powers up. Or like how the Klingons and Romulans have to decloak to get enough power to use all their weapons.

These are more complications to factor into the design when considering back-up systems: is it worth the extra cost and space when battle damage might reduce EP's to where the best option might just be to transfer power to the drives and scamper, or maybe just keep as many weapons up as you can with the higher agility gain to make you a harder target to hit instead of switching on the extra dampers or meson shields?

Personally, IMTU I don't waste space and cost on back-up shields unless the ship is like a Command and Control capital ship or something so important as a flag ops vessel that it needs to be up and running as long as possible. I instead tend to buy back-up computers and auxiliary bridges so I can make sure I have those DM's in combat while my missile-heavy ships make that range change from long to short where then the cost of all the laser and energy weapon batteries need to come into play. The spinal guns are going off at long range, too, so some ships can't use them at close range if they use all their EP weapons then, or keep the high agility.

Choices, choices...it's why HG is better than most seem to think, abstract as is it for adventure-class ships.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Sabredog,

I have a few designs of smaller destroyers that have spinal guns

To my knowledge the smallest warship that have spinal mounts are cruisers, which can be found on page 9 of Supplement 9 Fighting ships.

 

[rancke]

To my knowledge the smallest warship that have spinal mounts are cruisers, which can be found on page 9 of Supplement 9 Fighting ships.

Indeed, it is the (3rd Imperium's) definition of a cruiser that it is big enough to mount a spinal mount (but too small to stand in the line of battle).


Hans

 

[sabredog]

Indeed, it is the (3rd Imperium's) definition of a cruiser that it is big enough to mount a spinal mount (but too small to stand in the line of battle).


Hans

Hey - IMTU there never was an Imperium and we don't need no stinkin' cruisers to mount a spinal gun in a destroyer.

A couple of my "destroyer" classes are really oddball in that they are mainly missile heavy with some laser batteries for defense. Otherwise they are essentially spinal guns with drives attached in a heavily armored hull. They can fire the big guns if they don't use the lasers and half the agility they are capable of if they use everything else. I have a few designs that are like that stemming form "I wonder what would happen if I...", and since I'm not constrained by the Emperor's Ministry of Defense I have some over-large destroyers.

You Victorian Navy analogy types can think of them as similar to the HMS Prometheus, or the USS Vesuvius - oddball one-offs that just didn't fit anywhere else. I had to come up with my designs before The Emperor's Fighting Ships came out in any case. With HG 1.0...then convert them all after 2.0 ...and well, I'm also curmudgeonly.

So I have huge flying bangsticks to fill in the gaps in the line. So there.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Rancke2,

Indeed, it is the (3rd Imperium's) definition of a cruiser that it is big enough to mount a spinal mount (but too small to stand in the line of battle).

Hans

Then my comment should have mentioned the tonnage range instead of the ship type class.

Thnaks Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Sabredog,

So what tonnage is your destroyer with a spinal mount and which type of spinal mount is installed?

 

[Whipsnade]

Then my comment should have mentioned the tonnage range instead of the ship type class.

Tom,

As a former squid like myself, I won't have to caution you that tonnage is only loosely coupled to class. Mission determines class and, because mission requires certain equipment and certain equipment requires certain tonnage, certain tonnages will couple to certain classes.

And all of that will change with tech level.

Out of the innumerable examples of this in naval history, I usually point to the RN's Powerful-class of protected cruisers from the 1890s. Because of the demands their mission placed on their design, the Powerful-class were larger than contemporary battleships.

As for tonnage changes across tech level, we only need look to the change in the size of destroyers over the last century.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Whipsnade.

The reason I'm asking about tonnage, or more correctly tons of volume is to figure out how close the hull is to the 20,000 to 100,000 ton range mentioned in Fighting Ships.

I have, as an experiment not to share, worked on designing the smallest possible hull with the best spinal mounts at various tech levels. I've also toyed with a design that was to test weapons systems. The hull was a dispersed structure that had a central spar used to test spinal mounts, empty bay and turret hardpoints. The power plant provides the power for the weapons. Any extra power of course runs the bridge, computer, and a minimum sized maneuver drive used for station keeping. Unfortunately, my quick look for the design met with little success. I'm going to have to look at the files I've stored on other media. Hopefully, I wasn't silly and left them on floppy or Iomega Zip discs.

Tom,

As a former squid like myself, I won't have to caution you that tonnage is only loosely coupled to class. Mission determines class and, because mission requires certain equipment and certain equipment requires certain tonnage, certain tonnages will couple to certain classes.

And all of that will change with tech level.

Out of the innumerable examples of this in naval history, I usually point to the RN's Powerful-class of protected cruisers from the 1890s. Because of the demands their mission placed on their design, the Powerful-class were larger than contemporary battleships.

As for tonnage changes across tech level, we only need look to the change in the size of destroyers over the last century.

 

[Carlobrand]

Hey - IMTU there never was an Imperium and we don't need no stinkin' cruisers to mount a spinal gun in a destroyer.

A couple of my "destroyer" classes are really oddball in that they are mainly missile heavy with some laser batteries for defense. Otherwise they are essentially spinal guns with drives attached in a heavily armored hull. They can fire the big guns if they don't use the lasers and half the agility they are capable of if they use everything else. I have a few designs that are like that stemming form "I wonder what would happen if I...", and since I'm not constrained by the Emperor's Ministry of Defense I have some over-large destroyers.

You Victorian Navy analogy types can think of them as similar to the HMS Prometheus, or the USS Vesuvius - oddball one-offs that just didn't fit anywhere else. I had to come up with my designs before The Emperor's Fighting Ships came out in any case. With HG 1.0...then convert them all after 2.0 ...and well, I'm also curmudgeonly.

So I have huge flying bangsticks to fill in the gaps in the line. So there.

As a general rule of thumb:

Battleships battle. Cruisers cruise. Destroyers - well, destroy, I guess. And frigates ... maybe I shouldn't have gone there.

Seriously though, whether you call it a destroyer or a light cruiser or a Class-3 blower-thinger-upper, it's the role that defines the ship, not the title. The conventional titles make it easier for everyone get a feel for what a given ship's role is, but they're not carved in stone. You could perhaps call it a battle destroyer, a destroyer-sized ship armed and armored for battle rather than for escort and picket work. On the other hand, the Star Destroyer of Star Wars fame is clearly not an escort.

IMTU, I class ships by a combination of role and size - based on what target-size DM they get. So, 1-A are scouts, corvettes and escorts, B-K are destroyers and frigates, L-P are cruisers (light, medium, heavy), and Q+ are battlecruisers and battleships.

Scouts probe well ahead of the fleet and independently into neighboring systems, generally avoiding combat. Design prioritizes speed and jump range.

Corvettes escort civilian shipping and guard orbital space against fighters and light threats. Design prioritizes speed and defense, with the aim of staying intact until the civilians can get away or reinforcements arrive. Jump range is usually low.

Destroyer escorts escort military shipping. Design prioritizes speed and defense. Some are designed as light commerce-raiders or skirmishers, with a focus on offense and jump range. Some are designed as heavy scouts, to probe more aggressively with enough firepower and defenses to push through fighter screens. They're small and - with high agility - hard to hit, but it's hard to find room for a decent screen while maintaining adequate jump range and agility.

Destroyers accompany the cruiser squadrons, doing picket duty and probing enemy defenses with enough firepower to both push through fighter screens and stand up to engagements with enemy destroyer pickets. They're intended to be able to hold the line briefly to cover a withdrawal by the cruisers if needed, the idea being that the smaller destroyers are kept fueled for a jump from the line to some rendezvous point if the battle goes sour. Design focuses on defense and keeping up with the fleet.

Frigates escort the battle squadrons. Role is identical to the destroyers but they're able to take a bit more punishment. Some are designed as heavy skirmishers and raiders, intended to probe enemy space and make the enemy divert forces to guard his rear areas without risking too large a commitment of resources. Your spinal destroyer fits here: good solid attention-getting punch but small enough to be expendable. (I personally tend to think of frigates as smaller than destroyers, but Traveller slapped the DE label on those, and "frigate" historically has applied to everything from escorts to ships filing the role of cruisers, so ...)

Both the cruisers and battleships are intended for the main battle. Cruisers are obviously less expensive, allowing more ships to cover a wider region of stellar space. Cruisers also run independently, serving a wide variety of special missions including deep penetration raids. Battleships are more expensive and more powerful, committed to key points and reinforced by the cruisers.

My TU also makes use of carriers, mostly light carriers attached to the fleets to provide a fighter screen and skirmish force. Not much use in the actual battle except maybe to help the destroyers cover a retreat, they're intended to provide advanced warning of inbound attackers, conduct pinpoint ground attacks, raid enemy commerce, go rescue the fleet scouts if they get in trouble, stuff that isn't in High Guard proper but sets the stage for some possible battle scenarios. A bit more use in MT, where detection is actually an issue.

 

[McPerth]

I have a few designs of smaller destroyers that have spinal guns that they can't fire unless the ship agility drops to 1 and/or they not use the laser and energy weapon batteries.

Personally, I'd call that ship a monitor, instead of a destroyer or a cruiser, but that may depend on the TU you are playing...

 

[rancke]

As a former squid like myself, I won't have to caution you that tonnage is only loosely coupled to class. Mission determines class and, because mission requires certain equipment and certain equipment requires certain tonnage, certain tonnages will couple to certain classes.

And all of that will change with tech level.

And with culture. What you say is eminently true for recent history and current state of affairs on Earth today. But the Imperium isn't just the 21st Century transposed to the 57th, is it? The Imperial Navy isn't just the Royal Navy in Space, is it?

I repeat, in the 3rd Imperium, 'cruiser' is the term used for a ship big enough to mount a spinal mount but unable to stand in the line of battle. Nothing to do with its role. Well... no doubt the term derived from the fact that cruisers are often used to cruise.


Hans