BCS: Don's Brainstorm for December 1, 2015

[robject]

Marc would look at each space TL, from TL6 to TL16, and consider the following:

Armor (types, varieties)
Main weapon (a spine if big enough)
Secondary weapons (usually bay weapons)
Tertiary/defense weapons (usually turrets)
Common strategies available at that TL

This will be useful because then the group can discuss how Marc's vision and design map to the T5.09 rules, and where adjustments are needed. Then we can look at strategies against other TLs, and at that point, at least my reservations about T5.09 should be dealt with.

That calls for a spreadsheet at the least.

How would YOU approach this task?

I'll start by turning it on its head, and addressing the SUBJECTS one by one. I am NOT an expert at big ship design and combat, so I hope to learn things from some of you out there.

And I'm going to use TL 7-17.


Armor

T5 armor has two characteristics. First it has a rating that's more or less similar to HG2 Layers. The Armor Value is generic enough to simply be equal to # Layers x TL.

Secondly, though, there are armor types and coatings which enhance or target specific protections. One listed armor type is TL dependent: Charged armor shows up at TL13. The rest appear to be generally available to any TL -- their effectiveness is dependent upon the TL itself.

I suspect Don was thinking about these types and coatings.

The dominating feature for capital ship design is the specific damage type for which armor is designed (blast, kinetic, EMP, and Radiation). While the general armor value is # Layers x TL, the specific damage protection is a hundred times this.

Taking a cue from High Guard, assume the typical TL15 capital ship has 4 layers of (charged, blast) armor, for a total AV of 120, and a specific "blast" protection rating of 12000. Thus we might expect a powerful PA spine to potentially deliver 12000 points of damage (before scaling, I hope!)

Here's how much armor ships at other TLs would need. Note the jump at TL13 when "Charged" armor becomes available.

TL AV 120
-- ---------
7  17 layers  (68%)
8  15 layers  (60%)
9  14 layers  (56%)
10 12 layers  (48%)
11 11 layers  (44%)
12 10 layers  (40%)
13  5 layers  (20%)     ***
14  5 layers
15  4 layers  (16%)
16  4 layers
17  4 layers

Note that a ship may theoretically have 24 layers of armor, displacing 96% of its hull volume. Such a ship would probably not be worth anything. The onus is on T5 to ensure that there are more impressive things worth doing with ships than slathering on a dozen layers of armor.


Spines

Here, Don was asking about TL restrictions for main weapons (that means Spines in capital ships). I think T5 is clear on base TLs for weapons, and I assumed that that applies to both main weapons and spines. I could be wrong. If my assumption is correct, then base TLs for main weapons are shown here.

Since this discussion is more about capital ships and Spines, I'm using the TL for extended-range weapons.

TL Weapon
-- ---------
8  Missile     (yes you can have a Missile Spine)
10 Pulse Laser (yes you can have a Laser Spine etc)
11 Beam Laser
11 DataCaster
12 PA
12 Plasma Gun
13 Fusion Gun
13 Rail Gun
13 Ortillery
14 Meson Gun
15 Jump Damper
17 Tractor/Pressor

From High Guard it is clear that spines are intended to deliver staggering amounts of damage. Per the armor section above, this seems likely to be preserved in T5.

Perhaps the last question here would be "what size ship can field a spine?" I think the answer to this is that you first choose the spine from a selection, then design the ship around it. The smallest possible result is likely to be in the 8,000-to-10,000 ton range.


Secondaries

Unless Marc adds a BCS rule, I would expect that the TL progression and usages for secondaries (Bays and Large Bays) is identical to that of spines. I do note that in fact one type of spine is actually a gigantic Bay.


Screens

I lump turrets, defensive weapons, and perhaps even fighter clouds under screens. These sorts of things would use a "defensive fire" rule, since they are point-defense use. Assuming they are short-ranged, their Tech Level tree is:

TL Screen
-- ------
 7 Pulse Laser
 7 Sandcaster
 8 Beam Laser
 8 DataCaster
12 Nuke Damper
12 Elec Scrambler
13 Meson Screen
14 Mag Scrambler
16 Black Globe
17 Grav Scrambler

 

[robject]

Strategies

Given the above, what strategies can you pull out from the various TLs?

TL 12 Hurts. TL 13 ships have significantly more volume for weapons. TL 14 ships have meson guns. TL 12 can't compete.
Mothball Fleet. TL 13 ships are quite useful against TL 12 and lower enemies.
Refits. Refitting older ships with Meson Gun spines makes them effective against TL 12 and lower enemies.
TL 13 vs TL 14. TL 14 ships vs TL 13 ships. If TL 13 ships can field meson screens, then TL 14 ships face a significant defense.

 

[mike wightman]

HG2 after all these years remains the definitive BCS guide.

Learn the lessons of HG2, pick it apart TL by TL, learn how ships change from TL to TL due to technology changes. Learn how those changes affect the nature of capitals.

Oh, and put repulsors back in - they were removed in TNE because the ship combat paradigm changed to the more realistic model that laser point defence would neutralise missiles as a threat. HG2 and T5 both make missiles very dangerous - you either need better point defence rules or put repulsors back.

 

[mike wightman]

Strategies

Given the above, what strategies can you pull out from the various TLs?

TL 12 Hurts. TL 13 ships have significantly more volume for weapons. TL 14 ships have meson guns. TL 12 can't compete.
Mothball Fleet. TL 13 ships are quite useful against TL 12 and lower enemies.
Refits. Refitting older ships with Meson Gun spines makes them effective against TL 12 and lower enemies.
TL 13 vs TL 14. TL 14 ships will have a hard time defeating TL 13 ships.

Not according to HG2.

Decide on what you want to model and model it. If you want to base it on HG2 then learn HG2 - if you want to scrap HG2 then decide and define the new parameters.

But be prepared for HG2 to still be being argued about in 35 years while T5 BCS goes the way of the dodo.

 

[robject]

That was one of Don's concerns. And Marc's. How Marc's vision reconciles HG2 to T5.

This thread is theoretically about Marc's vision, how to map that to T5.

A separate thread is about how T5 can come to grips with HG (not HG1 or HG2, but just HG).

 

[mike wightman]

Then get Marc to actually give us his vision rather than trying to describe an elephant as a blind man.
From reading AotI and T5 I can see some of Marc's deviations from HG, but that itself raises some questions in my mind.
Who actually wrote HG1 and HG2?
Why was HG1 so bad it was replaced almost immediately by HG2?
How is HG2 still not the finished article?

I have notes on every change in technology in HG as you advance up the TL chart.
Some impacts of these changes on combat are obvious - some are not.
I have some major issues with HG2 - the slavery to the USP block that limits weapon types, the lack of differentiation between bays and turrets for example - and some of it is just plain silly - crew hits and fuel tanks shattered I'm looking at you.

There are fixes, house rules, variants to HG2 that must contain some of the fixes that Marc could base T5BCS/HG3 on.

Either he needs to write it or give it to someone to write, but first he needs to tell us what his vision is.

 

[robject]

Indeed.

I think you already know the answer to one or two of those questions.

 

[whartung]

Indeed.

I think you already know the answer to one or two of those questions.

Which questions? What answers?

 

[Timerover51]

Then get Marc to actually give us his vision rather than trying to describe an elephant as a blind man.

I suspect that Marc's vision keeps evolving, and is not a fixed point.

From reading AotI and T5 I can see some of Marc's deviations from HG, but that itself raises some questions in my mind.
Who actually wrote HG1 and HG2?
Why was HG1 so bad it was replaced almost immediately by HG2?
How is HG2 still not the finished article?

As to who actually wrote High Guard, my guess would be Frank Chadwick.

As to why the 2nd edition came so quickly, see the following comment.

As for why High Guard 2nd Edition is not the finished article, I would suggest that you look at Space: 1899. The aerial flyer combat system is different in every book that covers aerial combat. Compare the basics in the main rulebook with Soldier's Companion with Sky Galleons of Mars with Cloudships and Gunboats with Ironclads and Ether Flyers. They are all similar but different. All of them have a bit of an unfinished feel to them. All were written by Frank.

I have both editions of High Guard, but as a confirmed "small ship" universe person, I do not use them.

Edit Note: The Space: 1889 comments are not intended as a criticism of Frank or the system, as I really like the game. I think that his ideas kept evolving as more experience was gained in using the combat system. And if Frank reads this, I still would like a license for the game.

 

[Reban]

TL Weapon
-- ---------
8 Missile (yes you can have a Missile Spine)
10 Pulse Laser (yes you can have a Laser Spine etc)

Question: How can you have laser spines if you can't have laser bays?

If we're talking about TL progression and consistency in the rules, then leaving odd gaps in weapons progression needs to be avoided.

As a wargame to further roleplaying I appreciate the need for rock/paper/scissors progressions with weapons and defenses, but lets keep internal consistency high.


N.B. I realize a very small spine may be smaller than a Main weapon or large Bay but if Spines are the main weapons of a ship and bays are considered secondary its worth pointing out.

 

[robject]

As for why High Guard 2nd Edition is not the finished article, I would suggest that you look at Space: 1899. [...] All of them have a bit of an unfinished feel to them. All were written by Frank. [...]

[...]I think that his ideas kept evolving as more experience was gained in using the combat system.

That's a very interesting suggestion, one that makes sense to us tinkerers: we're never done with things, and we can't leave them alone.

 

[kilemall]

HG2 after all these years remains the definitive BCS guide.

Learn the lessons of HG2, pick it apart TL by TL, learn how ships change from TL to TL due to technology changes. Learn how those changes affect the nature of capitals.

Oh, and put repulsors back in - they were removed in TNE because the ship combat paradigm changed to the more realistic model that laser point defence would neutralise missiles as a threat. HG2 and T5 both make missiles very dangerous - you either need better point defence rules or put repulsors back.

Since we are in speculative rules land here, let me mention that in my HG2/Mayday version, repulsors are effectively temporary directional missile defenses, not one per missile swarm shot but one per X period of time per direction.

This is because I am upping missile firepower, sounds very similar to whatever T5 is doing.

 

[mike wightman]

The best treatment of repulsors is the repulsor array in GT:ISW.

 

[mike wightman]

Question: How can you have laser spines if you can't have laser bays?

If we're talking about TL progression and consistency in the rules, then leaving odd gaps in weapons progression needs to be avoided.

As a wargame to further roleplaying I appreciate the need for rock/paper/scissors progressions with weapons and defenses, but lets keep internal consistency high.


N.B. I realize a very small spine may be smaller than a Main weapon or large Bay but if Spines are the main weapons of a ship and bays are considered secondary its worth pointing out.

Answer - any weapon should be available as spinal bay or turret within certain limitations due to TL and the like.
TNE FF&S was probably the best with regards to weapon design. If you took the trouble you could build certain 'standard' sizes of weapons at the various TLs and slot them into your designs.
The spinal laser is a thing of much destructive potential...

I note that massdrivers/railguns finally become a thing in T5 and AotI (MgT has had them for a while now).

 

[aramis]

That's a very interesting suggestion, one that makes sense to us tinkerers: we're never done with things, and we can't leave them alone.

From all accounts, Marc, Frank, Loren, and Robject are all constant tinkerers.

 

[Reban]

Answer - any weapon should be available as spinal bay or turret within certain limitations due to TL and the like.
TNE FF&S was probably the best with regards to weapon design. If you took the trouble you could build certain 'standard' sizes of weapons at the various TLs and slot them into your designs.
The spinal laser is a thing of much destructive potential...

I note that massdrivers/railguns finally become a thing in T5 and AotI (MgT has had them for a while now).

Exactly. Any weapons system should be scalable from turret to spine, unless theres a very good reason to give a hard upper or lower limit, but please no incongruous gaps like havin laser turrets and spines but not bays.

Meson guns are another anomaly. They get as small as 67dtons but contray to other editions there are no battlefield mesons guns.

 

[robject]

Why was HG1 so bad it was replaced almost immediately by HG2?

So I sat down this weekend and compared the two, and found some interesting differences, which may explain the what better than the why for me. I found a lot of good information in both; some of the descriptive text from HG1, and missing from HG2, appeals to me.

I assume Mike knows the changes better than I.

Some of the interesting changes escape me at the moment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

HG2 is the result of two angles of attack: first, the rules of HG1 were deemed deficient. Second, the layout of HG1 was also deemed deficient. These are two different works, and may or may not point to two individual purposes; my first assumption is that the person laying out HG1 is not the same person as the one laying out HG2. I could be wrong.

My second assumption is the person in charge of writing the rules, wrote the rules for both. I think that would imply Frank, who probably came up with innovations and then had to mine Marc for the universal constraints of Traveller if and when necessary ("How about droppable fuel tanks?" "Are you sure about the 100 ton limit for jump-capable ships?")

I furthermore suggest that HG1 was a kind of draft: it was produced knowing that it would probably require changes, but GDW decided that getting something out earlier and then producing a wholesale revision was better than delaying. It may have been an organization of the house rules already in use for small craft in CT, as well as the Gazelle and the Azhanti High Lightning. That sort of decision sounds like the kind of thing Marc would do, even as a semi-retired publisher (T5.00).


LONG-WINDED VERSION

The Need For A More Challenging Design Process

A clear indication that HG1 was considered "so bad" is in the power rules.

The major difference between HG1 and HG2 is an added complication: the creation of power balancing rules. HG1 and Book 2 both assumed that the drives were the critical power considerations. This was clearly deemed inadequate for warships, bristling with major weapons, including the power-hungry spine.

HG is for War; Book 2 is for Commerce. And thus we see that HG2 itself is a poor system for non-warships: power rules are overkill if your ship isn't designed for war. Since this is not a deficiency, it doesn't require another rules edit. Since both HG1 and HG2 clearly state the preference of place of Book 2, this is largely a non-issue.


Design Tables in One Place (and the missing ten-ton bay)

I clearly remember one minor difference: the design tables were reformatted to fit cleanly in the exact center of HG2, for easy pull-out reference. That intentional center-pull-out item is explicitly mentioned in the text.

I suggest that the ten-ton bays found in HG1 are a casualty of that layout goal.


Combat Tables

It appears to me that the combat tables for non-spines were streamlined a bit. In HG1 it looks as though weapons had to roll to penetrate hull armor in every case, whereas in HG2 it seems to me that armor becomes a DM on two damage tables (and for reducing crits from spines). With one less dice roll to make for every battery, HG2 is faster than HG1.

The text flow and directions seem clearer, as well.

Also interesting is that the spines in HG1 don't get extra hits, and don't automatically roll crits... And by the way, the crit table is more deadly in HG1.


Hull Configurations Changed

While the configuration names, streamlining, and cost mods didn't change, the most important element about them did: how they protected a ship from meson gun attacks. In HG1, the configuration number was in effect a direct negative DM to hit.

The designers then decided they made some mistakes there, and reordered their effectiveness without changing their actual number. Thus the to-hit table was no longer a simple task roll with a hull config DM (in effect). This theoretically makes HG2 a bit slower than HG1, since in HG1 meson spine attacks could be represented as a task roll with a hull configuration DM.

It seems to me that, if the configurations were re-numbered properly, then the meson attack could once again be a task with a DM. More interestingly, however, the meson attack could bypass the attack roll entirely: go straight to rolling on the internal hits table, using the hull configuration as a DM. Reformat the table so that there are "no damage" results. This streamlines combat further.

 

[aramis]

You left out the third size of bays (10Td) got dropped, weapon factors changed from rating per 1000Td, as number of batteries under HG1 is always Td/1000 round up.