Used in the HG combat system, no, they're JUST as fragile as HG drives. You have to do some conversion to go the other way...
Bk 5 Small Ship Universe
- Thread starter Piper
- Start date
Used in the HG combat system, no, they're JUST as fragile as HG drives. You have to do some conversion to go the other way...
I would.
I was referring to all of this converting as being done parallel to each, and then combat resolved on the player scale through LBB2 since that better (or at least more interestingly) supports PC-level combat with role-playing. This would make HG drive a lot less capable of absorbing damage than LBB2 drives.
Fleet scale (or big ship) with HG.
So, Tons of Damage per hit, then. Yeah, that would make them much more fragile.
For those who don't know, essentially, a Bk 2 hit is any of the following:
20Td of fuel
5Td of JDrive
2Td of Maneuver Drive
4Td of PP
20Td of Cargo
1/12th of a Computer
1 Weapon mount (turret or barbette - there are Bk2 adaptations for a PA barbette)
What I'm referring to is the way that drives are knocked down by a letter of classification - a K drive is now a J drive and its capabilities calculated accordingly.
Depending on the drive and hull this could mean a drive will stand up to more hits before losing its capabilities altogether than a simple 5-4-3-2-1-0 progression with an HG drive. In some cases, like a type 3 drive in HG equals 3-2-1-0, but a type F drive in the same hull in LBB2 gives a return of 3-3-2-2-1-1-0.
So in combat, given that only single hits are scored in drive damage in HG, and the same in LBB2, the LBB2 drives are more robust. But they are also less efficient in energy production so you can't plug a meson gun into one.
This is one facet of the HG system that has always bothered me, but I can live with it since I don't use that system of combat resolution unless it is a big ship action.
Depending on the drive and hull this could mean a drive will stand up to more hits before losing its capabilities altogether than a simple 5-4-3-2-1-0 progression with an HG drive. In some cases, like a type 3 drive in HG equals 3-2-1-0, but a type F drive in the same hull in LBB2 gives a return of 3-3-2-2-1-1-0.
So in combat, given that only single hits are scored in drive damage in HG, and the same in LBB2, the LBB2 drives are more robust. But they are also less efficient in energy production so you can't plug a meson gun into one.
This is one facet of the HG system that has always bothered me, but I can live with it since I don't use that system of combat resolution unless it is a big ship action.
Well, the CT letter drives equate to the tons of damage method. The Tons of Damage method simply renders the use of the letters irrelevant. It almost was the method used for T20, until it was realized that it resulted in incredibly large amounts of hits for capital ships.
You must think that each HG damage roll probably represents more than one hit (after all, few batteries will be formed by a single weapon), so explaining (IMHO) this increased damage producing effect you talk about.
No, I know that each HG hit is usually from a battery, but this falls apart as the scale of the battle is reduced to two ships in the range of a few 100 tons each with only a couple of turrets apiece that are not grouped in batteries of more than one turret each. Unless there are ten or more turrets or weapons of a single type they don't have to be grouped in batteries of multiple turrets. And the OP was talking about a small ship universe so the big boys with the rows of laser batteries will be more of an exception than a rule. Especially down in the weeds among the players.
In this case the ship with the LBB2 drives is usually more capable of absorbing damage to those drives than the HG design. All things otherwise being equal, which in the less than 1000t range is usually the case since screens and armor will be nonexistent or negligible. It obviously depends on the drive used for a given rating relative to the hull tonnage, but the example I gave is not extreme. There are numerous combinations possible that work out the same way.
And in any case, all of this is relative to the OP's query on somehow harmonizing the two systems so it obviously violates what some consider inviolable holy canon. There are some trade-offs, though, even if using this harmonizing: HG ships can have higher agility, generate more power to allow the use of screens and bigger weapons, etc.. But those are all going to be houserules, as would be required to go outside canon.
In this case the ship with the LBB2 drives is usually more capable of absorbing damage to those drives than the HG design. All things otherwise being equal, which in the less than 1000t range is usually the case since screens and armor will be nonexistent or negligible. It obviously depends on the drive used for a given rating relative to the hull tonnage, but the example I gave is not extreme. There are numerous combinations possible that work out the same way.
And in any case, all of this is relative to the OP's query on somehow harmonizing the two systems so it obviously violates what some consider inviolable holy canon. There are some trade-offs, though, even if using this harmonizing: HG ships can have higher agility, generate more power to allow the use of screens and bigger weapons, etc.. But those are all going to be houserules, as would be required to go outside canon.
Who ARE these people who consider canon inviolable? I've been keeping an eye out for them ever since I read about them, and I've yet to see a post by one.
We are a goodly number who think that canon shouldn't be violated without a really good reason, and we tend to disagree about what is and what isn't a good reason, but that's not the same as considering canon to be inviolable, and I really don't understand how anyone can possibly confuse the two.
Hans
Too many binary thinkers can't differentiate between two somewhat similar positions and lump them all into one.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
There have been a few around, Hans. There tends to be yelling and bloodletting, then someone decides not to return to the forums. But, not nearly so many as think so.
Garyius2003
SOC-13
I really dislike the Mega setting rebellion, and hated the TNE.
I accepted reading the GURPs system just to undo that mess. Now Mongoose is more understandable, and therefore better. (Economics of ships still broken, but not as badly).
I actually mean I really disliked the rebellion, as in got away from the game, and stopped playing with hard times.
I do feel strongly about the settings, but not to fighting to the point of being silly.
I accepted reading the GURPs system just to undo that mess. Now Mongoose is more understandable, and therefore better. (Economics of ships still broken, but not as badly).
I actually mean I really disliked the rebellion, as in got away from the game, and stopped playing with hard times.
I do feel strongly about the settings, but not to fighting to the point of being silly.
The last one got permabanned over issues of posting style.... ie, generally rude and insulting. Which is the #2 reason for banning. (#1 is being a spammer.)
I liked a lot about the game, disliked the whole Rebellion, and thought TNE was poorly done. What I didn't like about the Rebellion was
1. The surprise - no buildup. Of course, I only had some material then. I'd played CT once.
2. The ease with which such a small thing destroyed everything.
3. At the time, I was a lot younger, and didn't like playing in the ruins. Now, I like it more, so long as it makes sense, and especially I like playing the rebuilding. In fact, that's what I'd like to see in Star Trek.
What I'd have liked to see is MT - the new Traveller game, with timeline, mechanics, etc updated. Include some sidebars on the sociopolitical background, showing the situation. Then the Referee's Companion is where I'd extend the timeline to include the assassination and the whole Rebellion.
I didn't intend to point any fingers at anyone specifically, only put it out there that a lot of the time when the subject of modding any part of HG or other canon rules comes up it lights a match and the ensuing flames ruin something the game allows.
HG specifically states that the rules therein where not to supersede anything from LBB2 except to provide for the design and operations of "very large naval vessels" and what is entailed in combat between them and fleets. Traveller also has that nifty last page of LBB3 that reminds us that we can do whatever we want with the rules to make the game more enjoyable for ourselves.
Unfortunately those two points are forgotten when a flame erupts over what can and can't be done in the game and with the rules. I was merely trying to, stop-cut, say, any flames from erupting by pointing out that canon is not holy writ and the game can be anything you want it to be. The OP wants HG and LBB2 harmonized in a small ship universe, I have yet to see a thread where that sort of effort (along with fighters, carriers, battleship design and numerous other things of similar ilk) doesn't get sidelined by arguments over what canon allows.
If I have offended anyone I apologize.
HG specifically states that the rules therein where not to supersede anything from LBB2 except to provide for the design and operations of "very large naval vessels" and what is entailed in combat between them and fleets. Traveller also has that nifty last page of LBB3 that reminds us that we can do whatever we want with the rules to make the game more enjoyable for ourselves.
Unfortunately those two points are forgotten when a flame erupts over what can and can't be done in the game and with the rules. I was merely trying to, stop-cut, say, any flames from erupting by pointing out that canon is not holy writ and the game can be anything you want it to be. The OP wants HG and LBB2 harmonized in a small ship universe, I have yet to see a thread where that sort of effort (along with fighters, carriers, battleship design and numerous other things of similar ilk) doesn't get sidelined by arguments over what canon allows.
If I have offended anyone I apologize.
IMHO, Bk2 and Bk5 ship rules represent two distinct scenarions.
In Bk2 rules, ships being small, the skill of the crew is greatly featured, with most skills being useful in starshp operations and combat (as long as the computers allow you to run programs that make those skills useful). If you run a maeover/evde program, the skill of the Pilot is the key. If you run a Gunner Interact, the skill of the gunner is the key.
In Bk5, OTOH, ships are assumed to be larger, with their crews in the order of thens to thousends of people, whose skills are not so featured and the ship's performance are more vital than the crew's skills. Only Pilot and Ship's tactics have a ture effect in ship combat, and the most vital aspect are the computer rating (assuming, I guess, better programs capacity and ECM) and agility.
To try to reconcile both of them, one must either use the Bk2 rules in larger ships (something unpractical for the sheer number of firings) or to use Bk5 rules in smaller ships (akin that done in MT with ship design/combat), so reducing the crew skills to nearly useless (except those told above), and so, IMHO gain, downplaying the characters role (and so roleplaying).
In Bk2 rules, ships being small, the skill of the crew is greatly featured, with most skills being useful in starshp operations and combat (as long as the computers allow you to run programs that make those skills useful). If you run a maeover/evde program, the skill of the Pilot is the key. If you run a Gunner Interact, the skill of the gunner is the key.
In Bk5, OTOH, ships are assumed to be larger, with their crews in the order of thens to thousends of people, whose skills are not so featured and the ship's performance are more vital than the crew's skills. Only Pilot and Ship's tactics have a ture effect in ship combat, and the most vital aspect are the computer rating (assuming, I guess, better programs capacity and ECM) and agility.
To try to reconcile both of them, one must either use the Bk2 rules in larger ships (something unpractical for the sheer number of firings) or to use Bk5 rules in smaller ships (akin that done in MT with ship design/combat), so reducing the crew skills to nearly useless (except those told above), and so, IMHO gain, downplaying the characters role (and so roleplaying).
In Bk2, the drives of a ship are downgraded by size, so to say, eroding them and making them more durable as they become larger. In Bk5, the hits affect directly performance.
The net effect is as you tell, as long as ships are minimally large, but may as well be reversed, in very small ships (or crafts).
While you need 2 Bk5 maneover hits to reduce a scout's maneover to 0, a single such hits do it in Bk2. Same (but accentued) happens with a fighter, as in Bk2 a single hit to its drives leaves it unable to maneover, while you need 6 such hits in Bk5 (or a critical, quite easey to attain versus such small crafts.
In Bk2 neither agility, nor armor, screens nor some weapons are featured, so those house rules are needed if you want to adapt those items to it.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The rules for LBB2 hits on HG2 rated drives can be found hidden in the K'kree Alien module.
Each LBB2 drive hit reduces the HG2 designed drive by 0.2.
Each LBB2 drive hit reduces the HG2 designed drive by 0.2.
