CT/HG Range Bands

[aramis]

Shrug. Density is up to the scenario writer or referee to determine.


I could see a lot more in specialized circumstances such as planetary rings.


Or, with enough preparation the battlefield could be prepped with artificially moved rocks to support whatever fleet plan maneuver.

For the scientifically literate, dense shoals outside rings push it from Sci-Fi to Space Fantasy, right there with Laser-Sword Paladins and Anti-paladins and hollyweird clips in the handles of their plasma pistols.

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

He understates the size.

If you can see another rock from any given rock within the asteroid belt, it's probably orbiting the dwarf planet you're semi-standing upon (until you flex your foot and put yourself into a 10 minute suborbital path).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I suspect the 2500K double-barrelled meson bay testcase works better. Or maybe one meson bay, one missile bay.

A dual-bay ship will be slightly cheaper per bay, but much easier to mission kill. Each spinal hit will kill two bays, not just one. Each missile wpn hit will knock out en entire bay, not just a factor.

I agree a meson/missile combo is probably better, but still easier to hit.

Also the tender will be much more expensive since we can't use the magic of Z-drives anymore.

I'd stick with a single factor-5 battery, to get an additional spinal hit at close range.

A meson-5 turned meson-B still can't penetrate screens, so of little use.

I'd spring for the model 9 Fiber, no point in giving a cheap radiation hit take away the whole point of the mission.

The only thing that can inflict radiation computer hits are meson spinals, and they will kill us anyway.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I'd spring for the model 9 Fiber, no point in giving a cheap radiation hit take away the whole point of the mission.

The only thing that can inflict radiation computer hits are meson spinals, and they will kill us anyway.

Comically we have both overlooked that the meson bay only works at Close range and that since computers are ignored we don't need big expensive computer at all...

With a minimal computer we can trim the meson bay rider down to MCr 1650:

Now it's starting to get cheap enough to be really dangerous...

 

[kilemall]

A dual-bay ship will be slightly cheaper per bay, but much easier to mission kill. Each spinal hit will kill two bays, not just one. Each missile wpn hit will knock out en entire bay, not just a factor.

I agree a meson/missile combo is probably better, but still easier to hit.

Also the tender will be much more expensive since we can't use the magic of Z-drives anymore.

I haven't been through decades of HG forum discussion, so I haven't really got the hang of all the minmax tricks people have worked out.


Did work with the tender concept in principle in WarpWar, I'm usually good with a system that makes it a balanced choice. Not so keen on the one trick pony or one optimal build result.


The easier to hit bit, that would be true of your 1.7K version too. It's only at 1000k tons that you get the -1 DM.

A meson-5 turned meson-B still can't penetrate screens, so of little use.

Er, I wasn't talking about cramming in a small meson bay, agreed on the uselessness against primary targets, more like a secondary weapon system of missile laser or sand. If anything I thought the commentary immediately afterwards made that clear.

The only thing that can inflict radiation computer hits are meson spinals, and they will kill us anyway.

Well technically, the multiple criticals from the PA spinals will as well, fair chance of an outright explosion. But I get your point, I don't usually design full armor-15 TL-15 ships and so missed the shift against the spinal rads.

 

[kilemall]

Comically we have both overlooked that the meson bay only works at Close range and that since computers are ignored we don't need big expensive computer at all...

With a minimal computer we can trim the meson bay rider down to MCr 1650:

Now it's starting to get cheap enough to be really dangerous...

Hahahahaha you're right!


This is why you don't go to war with an unbalanced fleet. At the least need enough secondary bay systems to chew up the fuel and disable them that way, or send out nuke armed fighters and blow them up before they reach the main fleet.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The easier to hit bit, that would be true of your 1.7K version too. It's only at 1000k tons that you get the -1 DM.

No, size A gets a negative DM and:

Hull tonnage for both metal hulls and planetoids is expressed as a code given on the tonnage table. Each specific tonnage level includes all values between it and the next highest stated level. Thus, tonnage code A includes all tonnages from 1,000 to 1,999 tons.

Ships of 1000 - 1900 Dt are very well supported by the rules...

Er, I wasn't talking about cramming in a small meson bay,

Sorry, I misunderstood.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

At the least need enough secondary bay systems to chew up the fuel and disable them that way, ...

On my example it takes 40 fuel hits or 16 wpn hits to mission-kill the meson bay. Since we inflict more wpn than fuel hits, fuel hits are not a limiting factor on ships this large. A single fuel hit will disable a small craft.

...or send out nuke armed fighters and blow them up before they reach the main fleet.

That should work.

It takes something like 700 missile shots from fighters to mission-kill the meson bay, yet we little to shoot back with... We need some more missile batteries.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So, add some more missile batteries in mixed turrets:

Price up 1%, but we have 7 factor-8 missile batteries to play with, instead of a single factor-9.


Unfortunately we can get something like 150 fighters of 5.5 Dt and MCr 8 (with carrier) for the same price as a single meson bay rider.

 

[whartung]

Each side concentrates fire on a single ship.
Squadron A fires 50 missile bays at 8+ to hit, 10+ to penetrate, 6- to do damage producing ~1.45 hits.
Squadron B fires 100 missile bays at 8+ to hit, 5 hits repulsed, 10+ to penetrate, 6- to do damage producing ~2.55 hits.
Squadron A takes more damage, so will lose the fight.

This is a fundamental issue with High Guard.

Once one side ends up on the wrong side of the dice, the fight is won, and the fight tends to go quickly. That doesn't mean there is no cost to the winner, but there is simply no "to and fro". With evenly matched fleets, one side inevitably rolls badly, and even a small chink in the armor is enough to cascade and fail quickly, meaning that there is little chance that the other side will roll badly enough in time to compensate for its early advantage.

Also, as in this example, the fight is determined before the first dice are rolled, all that is left is to ascertain the cost. Since ships tend to be irreplaceable in campaign terms (it's a time thing, not a money thing), the repulser fleet would be wise to a) not even engage or, at least, b) leave as soon as possible.

Come back later with more ships.

 

[mike wightman]

The odd thing is that in the history of warfare no general or admiral has agreed with his/her opponent to turn up with evenly matched forces (not strictly true but you get my point).

If you are attacking you need a significant numerical advantage, both sides use every dirty trick in the book to gain some edge over the opponent etc.

HG isn't the issue - well ok there are significant issues with it - the issue is the idea of balancing forces as per TCS.

The major gripe I have with HG is the need for statistical resolution - the weapon factors should represent the number of weapons and their relative strength IMHO - HG'79 got close to this but was also flawed. I don't mind combat charts and matrices for a wargame, but I want to resolve an attack in the minimum number of dice rolls, with the dice actually playing a part rather than the statistical resolution reducing the dice rolling to absurdity.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Also, as in this example, the fight is determined before the first dice are rolled, all that is left is to ascertain the cost. Since ships tend to be irreplaceable in campaign terms (it's a time thing, not a money thing), the repulser fleet would be wise to a) not even engage or, at least, b) leave as soon as possible.

Come back later with more ships.

Agreed.

Setting up equal forces and pretending to fight to the death is just a way of learning how the system works and evaluating designs for a specific situation, like a tactical training simulation.

 

[whartung]

The odd thing is that in the history of warfare no general or admiral has agreed with his/her opponent to turn up with evenly matched forces (not strictly true but you get my point).

That's all true.

But real battles have all sorts of factor of unpredictability. They also have terrain and other factors to deal with.

In gaming, how many here have had a nice offensive push in Risk stalled when Overwhelming Force met Steadfast defenders. Where you lose 5 armies to that lone survivor.

In Risk, the locality of a streak of luck can have great effect.

HG, however, has so many rolls, many of those spikes are simply smoothed over in the bell curve.

Also, HG doesn't model many other factors, in anyones favor.

If you view HG as a system to determine the cost of a conflict, as a mechanism to calculate how much an attack is going to consume, then it's fine. It's a combat system better designed to manage a strategic game, vs most other starship combat systems which are focused on the tactical level.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But real battles have all sorts of factor of unpredictability.

A combat between two capital ships is plenty random, as it should be, cf Bismark vs Hood.

A combat between fleets of hundreds of ships is not random, as it should be, cf Battle of the Atlantic.

 

[kilemall]

For the scientifically literate, dense shoals outside rings push it from Sci-Fi to Space Fantasy, right there with Laser-Sword Paladins and Anti-paladins and hollyweird clips in the handles of their plasma pistols.


He understates the size.

If you can see another rock from any given rock within the asteroid belt, it's probably orbiting the dwarf planet you're semi-standing upon (until you flex your foot and put yourself into a 10 minute suborbital path).

Well neat. Folks want to do Space Sim, they can take your point under advisement, and others can go Space Opera.

 

[kilemall]

On my example it takes 40 fuel hits or 16 wpn hits to mission-kill the meson bay. Since we inflict more wpn than fuel hits, fuel hits are not a limiting factor on ships this large. A single fuel hit will disable a small craft.

Er, I was under the impression that Fuel hits were something like 1% tonnage per number hit. So we're talking something like 28 hits.

 

[kilemall]

The odd thing is that in the history of warfare no general or admiral has agreed with his/her opponent to turn up with evenly matched forces (not strictly true but you get my point).

If you are attacking you need a significant numerical advantage, both sides use every dirty trick in the book to gain some edge over the opponent etc.

HG isn't the issue - well ok there are significant issues with it - the issue is the idea of balancing forces as per TCS.

The major gripe I have with HG is the need for statistical resolution - the weapon factors should represent the number of weapons and their relative strength IMHO - HG'79 got close to this but was also flawed. I don't mind combat charts and matrices for a wargame, but I want to resolve an attack in the minimum number of dice rolls, with the dice actually playing a part rather than the statistical resolution reducing the dice rolling to absurdity.

Well, along those lines, unless one is pressed up against a planet or a fuel source/choke point one cannot give up, most space combats are going to be 'voluntary' if one can just jump away from unfavorable conditions.


A warfare example would probably be more like HG defines formations like a DESRON or CRUDIV, and fleet admirals create the conditions under which they engage including uneven numbers of forces. Then it's a matter of how well the designs hold up under 'unfair' conditions and can decisively win under 'favorable' conditions.


Tactics and weapons available do have strategic implications and vice versa.


As to the roll roll roll issue, I have a solution for that. You may not like it, but it is a solution. That will come up in I think part III of this series.

 

[kilemall]

Ships of 1000 - 1900 Dt are very well supported by the rules...

Eh this is what I get for pontificating without rechecking.

 

[mike wightman]

That's what HG models, fleets that decide to battle one another while maintaining enough distance that ships don't autokill each other. Introduce a planet or gas giant and the fleets have an objective to be fighting around, but deep space battles require a deliberate choice to engage in combat.

If fleets do not adjust their vectors to engage one another there is very little chance you would get more than one turn of weapons fire as ships moving at 100kps+ hurtle past each other.

I highly recommend reading the atomic rockets pages on space warfare, these two in particular:
general introduction to war in space
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarintro.php
strategy and tactics
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewartactic.php

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Er, I was under the impression that Fuel hits were something like 1% tonnage per number hit. So we're talking something like 28 hits.

Fuel-n: Current fuel is reduced by n% of total fuel capacity (at least 10 tons).

Since my example ship has ~400 Dt fuel it takes ~40 fuel hits to empty the tanks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

To force an opponent to Close range you really have to catch them in a pincer and approach from different directions, otherwise the enemy can just retreat to keep the distance.

There should probably be a system or task for achieving the pincer movement. Opposed Fleet Tactics rolls?