• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

CT High Guard Agility

Here it is:
The average skill level of a non-player character
in his assigned job (and hence the background level of the combat system) is
assumed to be two.
It's how I came up with the modifiers to be used for overall crew quality

green DM-1 (skill level 0-1)
regular DM 0 (skill level 2)
veteran DM+1 (skill level 3-4)
elite DM+2 (skill level 5-6)
 
The paragraph containing the modifications for higher skill levels (skill-1/2) says that the tables assume a skill rating of 2. The modification formula is only for skills above 2, so I'm not sure that it applies to the table values for lower skill ratings, there's no mention of adjusting the values for skills below 2.

The formula neatly extends down to negative values, so I have always used it so. I'm afraid my players generally do not have skill-2 in all space skills.

My basic point is that adding the full skill as DM in HG is not intended and too much, skill / 2 is more reasonable.
 
That's..... not true, except for fixed weapons forward, missiles, and spinal guns if you think of them as fixed forward weapons.

Everything else is on turrets that can move on their own within an arc without needing the mounting ship to line up.

The more "agile" the ship, the more readily the ship can match and reduce the ΔV between two ships. Reducing the ΔV between the two improves the the ability to hit. Redacto absurdum: reduce ΔV to zero, and, relatively, the two bodies are "standing still".

The more "agile" the ship, the easier for them to inject ΔV in to the firing solution, thus messing it up. Equally agile ships should be able to more readily compensate for each others ability to add ΔV.

If you want to exclude missiles from the agility DM, be my guest. Or you can assign a "stock" agility to a missile and create individual DMs.
 
The more "agile" the ship, the more readily the ship can match and reduce the ΔV between two ships. Reducing the ΔV between the two improves the the ability to hit. Redacto absurdum: reduce ΔV to zero, and, relatively, the two bodies are "standing still".

...Equally agile ships should be able to more readily compensate for each others ability to add ΔV.
That would all be true only if you instantaneously knew the change in vector your target was implementing, but with long distances (and hence time lag) and high velocities, it will not be even close to true.

Extending Kilemall's point, the attacker can move their whole ship or their turret. Either works and it doesn't help matters to move both (except to close distance). Presumably a turret is a lot easier to move.
 
A skill of two does generally not translate into a DM +2 in HG:

So, DM = ( Skill - 1 ) / 2, i.e. a skill of 3 or 4 gives a DM +1.

SkillDM
Unskilled(-3)-2
Skill-0-1
Skill-1±0
Skill-2±0
Skill-3+1
Skill-4+1
Skill-5+2
If you want to remove the default skill-2 from the combat tables you should probably just add one to the table target numbers and add a DM of Skill / 2, round up.

Adding the full skill would risk overwhelming the tables. A Ship's Tactic-5 skill would make a ship almost unhittable, while automatically hitting the enemy. The combat system would collapse...

I also use the DMs as you say, using the formula (Skill-1)/2.

See that this means any OC with Ship's tactics 0 will have a -1 to computer number, and any OC with no ship's tactics will have a -2... Same for Pilot (or ship's boat) and agility.

See that if you apply this in all situations, though, ther may be curious situations

e.g. Pilot just exiting the Flight school is in a fighter. he hasno ship boat skill, Pilot 1 (that doubles as ship's boat 0, as he's in a fighter...) and no ship's tactics skill (that's not learned neither in the accademy nor the flight school). SO he will fight with -1 to agiolity and -2 to computer rating. And I guess the flight school is where most fighter pilots come from...

So I allowed fighters to overcome the negative DM for ship's tactics if their squadron leader has Ship Tactics 1+ or the fighters' controller has fleet tactics 1+ (and they ahve communications, of course).

Likewise, I never allowed Pilot skill to more than double the ship's own agility (if you're on a jumbo, agility will be 0, regardless the pilot's skill).
 
The more "agile" the ship, the more readily the ship can match and reduce the ΔV between two ships. Reducing the ΔV between the two improves the the ability to hit. Redacto absurdum: reduce ΔV to zero, and, relatively, the two bodies are "standing still".

The more "agile" the ship, the easier for them to inject ΔV in to the firing solution, thus messing it up. Equally agile ships should be able to more readily compensate for each others ability to add ΔV.

If you want to exclude missiles from the agility DM, be my guest. Or you can assign a "stock" agility to a missile and create individual DMs.

That doesn't make sense, at all.

The firing ship's maneuvers doesn't 'match' the enemy like some heaving sailing ship, or get on the six of a target fighter, especially in multi-LS CT.

The firing ship just needs to know where it is in relation to the target and be rolled to have the weapon firing be in LOS and arc, something that does not require m-drives.

Since the same computer has the maneuver drive program able to feed the target program any maneuvers in the next few seconds, the target program has that variable eliminated, all it has to know is where the target ship is and where it could be in the next 1-6 seconds (the time for sensor data on the target to come in, process the best firing solution, fire, and the shot to hit/miss/hit but do no damage).


The solution to high agility is not high agility, but higher tech computers and more shots and closing to shorter ranges to get better hit probability.

The targetting computer just doesn't care about whether there is less matching delta vee or more, it just has to know how much and what the target ship can do in the next 6 seconds.

The other point is that agility IMO should not be conflated with major maneuver accel. A max agility 6 ship could do -6 DM or 6G accel, not both. A fighter on max 6G burn should have 0 DM for missing.


Trade range selection for erratic maneuvering, to use the SFB meme.

Agility negative DMs are all about the target ship using main M-drive to max accel for a few seconds or not at crazy angles without changing the main course and acquired vee. That increases the potential target bubble to a much larger sphere rather then a few dozen meters in a straight line plus rolls and lateral thruster viffs.

So to me you aren't getting distance AND avoiding damage, not unless its' say 3G and -3 DM.
 
HG models fleet combat where two fleets meet to do battle. Both fleets maintain a velocity relative to each other to maintain the mutually agreed range between them.

The ranges are:
out of range - too far away fro accurate weapon fire
long range - the range at which missiles and beams can potentially hit
short range - the range at which energy weapons can potentially hit
visual/boarding range

Agility is a measure of how much energy is available for drives during combat:
Agility is the ability of a ship to make violent maneuvers
and take evasive action while engaging hostile targets.
This aspect of agility is not much of an abstraction, it is the use of the m-drive for drunken walk/evasive maneuvers.

Agility is also used as a measure of relative maneuvering i.e. range altering potential since it is used in the initiative step and it is used when breaking off, indeed a ship breaking off from the reserve has its effective agility raised by two so in this case agility is also representing relative velocity and range.

(Aside - my suggestion for using agility as an active currency it is not a SFB meme, I have never read, played or owned any version of SFB).
(Aside 2- in Mayday use of evade costs you maneuvering g, not mentioned in LBB2 but worth adding back in, while Triplanetary has rules for relative vector providing a -DM to be hit, again worth putting back into LBB2.)
 
Absolutely agree with the point made by Mike re use of G for evasion (this is not only in Mayday, but also in TNE/Battle Rider). It adds so much to the game when commnaders have to make a choice between zipping across the board or staying in place but becoming a much harder target.
 
...This aspect of agility is not much of an abstraction, it is the use of the m-drive for drunken walk/evasive maneuvers.
...

Only problem there is evasive maneuvering isn't much use against light speed weapons inside a certain range. High Guard is abstract but, when MegaTraveller evolved from it, they defined short range as 50,000 km. At that range, there's about a third of a second between the time an emission from the target reaches your ship and the time your laser's beam reaches the predicted position of the target. Let the target accelerate at 6G, and it's altered its position from what the attacker predicted by a whopping 3 1/3 meters in that time.

At 150,000 km, it gets better: a 6G ship can alter by up to 30 meters, which can mean a clean miss if you're shooting at a fighter, but a dreadnought - especially something like the Tigress - just ends up taking the hit on a different part of its hull.

High Guard captures certain popular sci-fi tropes to make the game more interesting, but you have to ignore some of the science to really enjoy some of the tropes.
 
I think the point of evasive moves is not that you wait until you see the enemy fire and then evade - rather that you are constantly running a series of random jinks and moves to throw off targeting solutions and generally make life harder for enemy gunners.

I take the point though that the larger the target ship, and the closer the range, the less effective evasion is going to be.
 
Precisely. Aside from maybe spinal mounts, agility is irrelevant at short range, and it's likely irrelevant for capital ships at long range. However, it does make things more interesting.

Book 2 doesn't do an agility. It does do a Maneuver/Evade, but I like to think of that as wiggling your ship to make sure the laser or missile hits you at a sharply oblique angle rather than head on, so the thing doesn't do damage. Lots quicker to spin a bit on your axis than to try to move tens of meters, and it doesn't depend on how powerful your drives are or how much spare power you have available for your drives - and indeed Book 2 doesn't care how powerful your drives are when you're using Maneuver/Evade.
 
Precisely. Aside from maybe spinal mounts, agility is irrelevant at short range, and it's likely irrelevant for capital ships at long range. However, it does make things more interesting.

Book 2 doesn't do an agility. It does do a Maneuver/Evade, but I like to think of that as wiggling your ship to make sure the laser or missile hits you at a sharply oblique angle rather than head on, so the thing doesn't do damage. Lots quicker to spin a bit on your axis than to try to move tens of meters, and it doesn't depend on how powerful your drives are or how much spare power you have available for your drives - and indeed Book 2 doesn't care how powerful your drives are when you're using Maneuver/Evade.

Quite true, and a key thing to keep in mind.

I think this is baked into HG on two levels, a bit more difficulty to hit on base for the lowest battery values representing the Auto/Evade and ECM, and the computer DM, representing a battle between competing Target and Evade programs along with EW.
 
I think the point of evasive moves is not that you wait until you see the enemy fire and then evade - rather that you are constantly running a series of random jinks and moves to throw off targeting solutions and generally make life harder for enemy gunners.

I take the point though that the larger the target ship, and the closer the range, the less effective evasion is going to be.


Correct again. Event he three seconds to say evade or execute the maneuver is too long.

I have excessively complex concepts to go with all that, but I don't think many of us use the CT computer rules, I certainly could not get my players to buy in.
 
Only problem there is evasive maneuvering isn't much use against light speed weapons inside a certain range. High Guard is abstract but, when MegaTraveller evolved from it, they defined short range as 50,000 km. At that range, there's about a third of a second between the time an emission from the target reaches your ship and the time your laser's beam reaches the predicted position of the target. Let the target accelerate at 6G, and it's altered its position from what the attacker predicted by a whopping 3 1/3 meters in that time.

At 150,000 km, it gets better: a 6G ship can alter by up to 30 meters, which can mean a clean miss if you're shooting at a fighter, but a dreadnought - especially something like the Tigress - just ends up taking the hit on a different part of its hull.

High Guard captures certain popular sci-fi tropes to make the game more interesting, but you have to ignore some of the science to really enjoy some of the tropes.


Right again. Course, the target size of those monsters as a factor is in the rules already.

I'm really happy with doing


  • Close/Medium/Long
  • 250000/500000/900000 km
  • NoAgility/NormalAgility/DoubleAgility
  • -1 per 100000km range, +1 per 10000km below 100000km paradigm.
  • Maybe competing agility DMs for spinal shots at close range, can't use agility during spinal shots.
HG looks like a different beast to me with these sort of rules. Now if we can only fix those crazy maneuver surface hit values.....

For range determination, Close/Medium/Long/Breakoff, has to determine how much goes to Agility DM and how much to accel, range change is to roll 1d6 even or below the higher accel fleet's advantage (so a fleet at 4G over a fleet of 2G could change range on a 1 or a 2).

On Fleet Tactics Initiative rolls, lower roll has to indicate what G they are going at and what range they seek, higher roll can then determine their G rating and range preference. Agility is revealed after range is determined.
 
Sorry, for me HG is a fleet design tricks contest and then a dice-rolling contest. That is why I gave up on it as a game long ago.

I want a fleet action where maneuver plays a real role alongside the other factors.
 
That's my goal, which is why I chase the unicorn of HG maneuver war at a better level then say the Mayday version.

Here's a different mechanic for those who like ship carving, as the visual range HG thread got into-

Replace the above +1 per 10,000 km closer then 100,000 km mechanic with increasing the weapon factor +1 per 10,000 km closer.

So at 90,000 km a factor 5 weapon/battery is factor 6, at 50,000 km they are factor A, etc, meaning bay weapons and even ACS turret batteries can deliver spinal weapon blows, and probability to hit goes up with the weapon factor.

Not sure what I would base the to hit for weapons that are not normally spinal factors, probably the PA to hit line.

For abstract I would probably have a suicide range added in, and it has to be rolled each time to close, range defaults to short next round.

The missiles wouldn't work that way in a maneuver game, instead they get weapon factor +1 for every 3G closing vee they have with the target.

So in a stern chase the chasing ship isn't going to do as much damage as being damaged by incoming from the chased ship, and head on approaches from both parties will do high damage.

I probably wouldn't increase probability or factor past 9, just the damage.
 
That doesn't make sense, at all.

The firing ship's maneuvers doesn't 'match' the enemy like some heaving sailing ship, or get on the six of a target fighter, especially in multi-LS CT.

The firing ship just needs to know where it is in relation to the target and be rolled to have the weapon firing be in LOS and arc, something that does not require m-drives.

Ever seen video of a modern MBT that's able to shoot on the move? How the vehicle rumbles along overland, bouncing about over humps and bumps at speed, stressing the suspension, yet the barrel of the gun is flat as a board?

That's the computer actively compensating for motion of the platform. You can apply the same concept to the weapons on a ship firing from a moving platform while tracking another moving platform.

"Agility" is the concept of being able to import movement in to your operations in to order to both thwart opponents, as well as being able to react to them.

The "fast, light" fighter against the heavyweight. Light on their feet, moving and dodging, getting shots in because they're ahead of the response rate of the defender.

To quote John Connor: "Too slow."

Normally, speed and agility comes at the cost of weight and momentum. As things get bigger and heavier, the amount of power in order to introduce some movements becomes more problematic, plus the amount of reinforcing to take something the size of a modern office building and rattle it at 6Gs.

My cat is very agile. She can scoot and avoid capture while at the same time snatch flying toys out of the air. The in built kitty ballistic computer is extraordinary. I can move the toy fast, she can move faster. The toy is very agile, the kitty is more so and is able to compensate and adjust her reactions within the envelope of maneuver of the balls, birds, mice, and other toys I flick around. Simply put, she is faster than I am. A combination of her strength to weight ratio, along with her natural dexterity and that kitty computer puts me (and the meeses) at a distinct disadvantage.

It's no different for starships at the meta level. If ship A can react quicker, using whatever mechanic, than ship B, then that capability offsets each other, and offers one ship an advantage over another in terms of getting guns on the target and improving the chance for a successful hit.
 
High Guard is an abstract system, you can only introduce so many house rules and changes before it ceases to be fit for purpose - I know this for many years if house rules and complications.

My latest version is to use a gameboard consisting of:
out of range
long range
short range
close range
visual/boarding

House rules:
agility may be spent to alter range at he cost of defensive DM as mentioned upthread
extra lines on the USP for bays - bays do not get the DM of +6 on the damage table (and yes bay nukes actually end up with a -6DM so are more likely to cause damage to armoured ships or score internal explosions)
at close range no agility DM vs turret weapons, weapons inflict a number of hits equal to their factor (spinals get +9 hits)
at visual range all beam weapons automatically hit and cause damage as per close range
 
Ever seen video of a modern MBT that's able to shoot on the move? How the vehicle rumbles along overland, bouncing about over humps and bumps at speed, stressing the suspension, yet the barrel of the gun is flat as a board?

That's the computer actively compensating for motion of the platform. You can apply the same concept to the weapons on a ship firing from a moving platform while tracking another moving platform. ...

The platform in that case is being affected by factors external to the platform that the computer cannot predict but must compensate for in real-time to maintain the barrel's aim. The factors involved in a spacecraft's movement are know to the computer because the computer is executing those commands. Even a Model 1 should be able to compensate for all the ship's own movement effects on weapon targeting; superior computing isn't needed. For a spacecraft in vacuum, the only external factors are the occasional jarring missile hit, venting fuel, and suchlike effects of weapons hits. The game doesn't factor those in.

...My cat is very agile. She can scoot and avoid capture while at the same time snatch flying toys out of the air. The in built kitty ballistic computer is extraordinary. I can move the toy fast, she can move faster. The toy is very agile, the kitty is more so and is able to compensate and adjust her reactions within the envelope of maneuver of the balls, birds, mice, and other toys I flick around. Simply put, she is faster than I am. A combination of her strength to weight ratio, along with her natural dexterity and that kitty computer puts me (and the meeses) at a distinct disadvantage.

It's no different for starships at the meta level. If ship A can react quicker, using whatever mechanic, than ship B, then that capability offsets each other, and offers one ship an advantage over another in terms of getting guns on the target and improving the chance for a successful hit.

A cat toy is not the size of a building, and kitty is not having to deal with light speed lag. Space combat is essentially taking things the size of office buildings up into the vacuum and then trying to shoot them with God's Own Laser Pointer. At 150,000 km, an angle adjustment of 1-second in a turret's aim is something like 727 meters; the turrets are having to make corrections measured in the tenths or hundredths of a second arc in order to lock onto and follow a target, and the image it's seeing is half a second old, and it's going to be another half a second before the laser beam reaches the target. None of that cares how much power you have available to put into your maneuver drive, because whatever orders you're giving to your maneuver drive are also being plugged into an equation and sent to your turrets as adjustments so your maneuvers won't affect them. Your agility does not offset his, and the agility of an office building at 6G acceleration is of no help whatsoever unless the light speed lag is long enough that it can get out from under the beam before the beam arrives. Otherwise it's just a matter of the beam burning through the wall on the 4th floor instead of the 3rd floor

Gun range: under 5 km. Mostly irrelevant unless some roleplay situation has a ship in low orbit that can't run away fast enough before the planet's grav-AFVs get to it and start shooting at it. Most AFVs can't manage more than 2G, so most ships in orbit can stay out of their effective weapon ranges while being able to shoot up any AFVs foolish enough to pursue. That free trader, though, it's vulnerable.

Visual range: between 5 and about 50 km or so, maybe a bit more if you like. Guns aren't a factor. Spacecraft lasers and energy weapons are at full power. Targeting is by image-enhanced visual sighting, and the range is too close for computers to have much of a say in what's happening. Range is too close for agility to be of any help except to AFVs and craft of about 10 dT or less.

Close range: between about 50 km and 5000 km. Spacecraft lasers and energy weapons are at full power, but other sensors are more involved in sighting and targeting.

Short range: between about 5000 km and 50,000 km. Spacecraft lasers and energy weapons are at half strength, which is the -6 penalty to the damage roll in High Guard. Range is too close for agility to be of any help, though a ship can try to turn and adjust attitude randomly to make the hits come in on angled facings rather than flat on. We might make agility effective against spinal mount weapons by arguing that these weapons have a poorer reaction time than turret weapons since they involve fine control of the entire ship - which has to be accomplished while said ship is also doing everything it can to adjust attitude randomly to take inbound weapon hits on angled facings rather than flat on. The turrets, on the other hand, are free to keep pointing at the target irrespective of changes in the ship's attitude, unless a change takes the target entirely out of the firing arc.

Medium range: between about 50,000 and 150,000 km, what High Guard would call long range. Outside of energy weapon range, but lasers and particle beams remain effective. Lasers are at a -1 to hit. (I wonder why particle beams don't get a penalty too.)

Long range: between 150,000 km and 250,000 km. Outside of meson range. Agility is a factor against turret beam weapons because the light speed lag is high enough that a ship can move out of the way before a light pulse fired by the target reaches it, so random movement can make a ship harder to hit. Lasers are at a -1 to hit.

Very long range: between 250,000 km and 500,000 km. The light speed lag is becoming a serious impediment. Lasers are at a -2 to hit, and agility is doubled except against missiles.

Extreme range: between 500,000 km and 900,000 km. Basically missiles only, unless a target is very cooperative and you are very lucky. Lasers are at a -5 to hit, and agility is tripled except against missiles. Note that military craft have a detection range of 600,000 km, so most such engagements will start at that range.

Rather a lot more ranges, but some interesting potential effects if you adopt it in the abstract game. You can try to hang outside of meson range and duke it out with missiles. If you're a capital ship, close range can be dangerous but you can still reduce the odds of a hit with superior computers, which means only the high-end fighters are a threat and you have a chance to pull back out to short range before the little fighters become a threat. Probably works better with range bands.
 
Back
Top