Five Things About High Guard

[Vladika]

(although I would change the rules about how only 1 ship is present from your battle line at a time so that escorts can actually support the ships they are escorting).

I find this is easy to accomplish, as well as most desirable. I do it by assigning specific escort vessels to a specific ship in the line. The escorts batteries fire on incoming missiles.

In that way Light "AA" Cruisers come into play, as well as many smaller vessels such as Destroyers, Frigates, Destroyer Escorts and Gunboats.

This could be a vastly longer response but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

[Vladika]

I'll basically agree with Hans' additional gripes, with the caveat that what we're really wanting is a wargame, and High Guard really isn't that -- it's more of a proving ground for fleet design.

Combine it with TCS, flesh it out logically, and it makes a good wargame. It takes a very long time though. Not a night, or even a weekend. It's a great, long term, strategic campaign.

 

[Vladika]

I acknowledge your points - I just don't think they make bays weapons sufficiently powerful or different from massed turret batteries.

I toyed with a house rule that bay weapons don't suffer the +6 modifier on the damage tables that turret batteries do. This beefs up bays to the damage potential I want in my secondary batteries rather than there being very little damage difference between secondaries an tertiaries.

Is that to much? What if the plus modifier was +2 or +3? I need to run this several times but love the idea.

I like the 10t bays as well, and I would happily put them back into a HG3.

I'd also like to see a laser spinal.

In a way they are already there. Ten Laser turrets equals 10dt and both require 1000dt of hull... Call it a 10 turret battery or call it a 10dt bay.

 

[Vladika]

I've been thinking about that, too. My conclusions are that (1) High Guard ship design needs to follow wargame rules, rather than RPG rules, and (2) its wargame rules need tweaking to be fun.

So lets do it. Obviously we all love CT/HG so lets "fix" it as a group. Where better than CotI and who better than CotI members?

We could work on it and "give" it to each other and never violate copyright. On top of that, as far as I'm concerned, FFE could sell it and Marc could make a tidy profit.

 

[aramis]

Things I like about HG	Things I dislike about HG
percentge based design system improvement over tech levels more weapon types armor	the whole combat system the damage being critical hits cumulations the percentages are backwards from book 2 lack of ability to reasonably handle <10000Td ships UCPs

 

[Supplement Four]

I'll basically agree with Hans' additional gripes, with the caveat that what we're really wanting is a wargame, and High Guard really isn't that -- it's more of a proving ground for fleet design.

It sounds as if you're wanting a tactical war game, with movement plot and such. (I'm sure you know that there's a JTAS article that brings Mayday hexes to High Guard, combining HG combat with MD movement).

From playing several Book 2 skirmishes, it's easy to realize that actual plotting in space combat isn't necessary. All you really need to know is range. That's why you plot. You need range, after movement, to a target for the attack roll DMs.

With HG, range is simplified into two range bands, (Long and Short), making managing the game much easier.



With Book 2, all that matters is when a ship crosses a range band (or range limit)--when Medium Range becomes Short Range. It doesn't matter, for the combat, if ships move around and reposition themselves but still within the same range band.

 

[robject]

It sounds as if you're wanting a tactical war game, with movement plot and such. (I'm sure you know that there's a JTAS article that brings Mayday hexes to High Guard, combining HG combat with MD movement).

From playing several Book 2 skirmishes, it's easy to realize that actual plotting in space combat isn't necessary. All you really need to know is range.

That's a good point - I am thinking tactical, because movement attracts me, but also fast-play games interest me.

So lets do it. Obviously we all love CT/HG so lets "fix" it as a group. Where better than CotI and who better than CotI members?

Each implementation needs a person in charge, in order to define the scope and keep the vision tight. And therefore, each version needs its own thread, and the "owner" needs to start that thread, and the owner ought to give it a name to distinguish against other games. This allows variants to bloom like daisies.

The first post should have a simple statement, the 10,000 foot vision.

 

[Piper]

So lets do it. Obviously we all love CT/HG so lets "fix" it as a group. Where better than CotI and who better than CotI members?

The image of herding cats comes to mind.

That being said, may I suggest that a poll would be a logical place to start? Something along the lines of "what would you like to see in a Traveller space combat game?" followed by "What you never want to see in said game?"

Might save a few false starts.

 

[Supplement Four]

That's a good point - I am thinking tactical, because movement attracts me, but also fast-play games interest me.

So, High Guard, plus the Mayday movement system, doesn't do it for you, per the JTAS article?

You get the combat system of HG combined with the hex movement system of MD. It seems to me that's what you're looking for.

 

[mike wightman]

A better way to model manoeuvre in HG without going to the extreme of vector movement would be to adapt range band combat. Spend manoeuvre rating/agility call it what you will to either change range, flank or as a defensive DM.

Add more range modifiers as DMs to mitigate for spending manoeuvre/agility for defence. rather than range adjustment.

 

[Vladika]

A better way to model manoeuvre in HG without going to the extreme of vector movement would be to adapt range band combat. Spend manoeuvre rating/agility call it what you will to either change range, flank or as a defensive DM.

Add more range modifiers as DMs to mitigate for spending manoeuvre/agility for defence. rather than range adjustment.

Could you give an example? Sounds intriguing.

 

[aramis]

A better way to model manoeuvre in HG without going to the extreme of vector movement would be to adapt range band combat. Spend manoeuvre rating/agility call it what you will to either change range, flank or as a defensive DM.

Add more range modifiers as DMs to mitigate for spending manoeuvre/agility for defence. rather than range adjustment.

range bands preclude meaningful use of arcs of fire and limits of acceleration upon spinal use.

Which said, those have been glossed over in most editions.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Forgot before:

9. sandcasters use: I can accept defensive fire might be aimed to incoming missiles that are on the right way, but it's harder for me to swallow aiming the sandcasters to incoming lasers (or energy weapons) ignoring those that miss and dedicating each sandcster fire to an incoming battery (incoherent with the idea of launching a sand field to affect passing fire).

IMHO they should be treated like a screen, its rate depending on launchers vs ship size and they should also affect outcoming fire (albeit at lower rate).

What's the problem, McP?

A turn lasts 20 minutes, and for a laser to do appreciable damage to a ship that can withstand a nuclear blast it's going to need to be trained on it for a good, long time.

So you don't catually fire your sandcaster until the red dot appears on your hull. THAT is the time to introduce your sand into its line of fire ...

 

[McPerth]

What's the problem, McP?

A turn lasts 20 minutes, and for a laser to do appreciable damage to a ship that can withstand a nuclear blast it's going to need to be trained on it for a good, long time.

So you don't catually fire your sandcaster until the red dot appears on your hull. THAT is the time to introduce your sand into its line of fire ...

Lasers go at light speed, and I guess most of the times you have no time to fire them (or for them to disperse enough) before the red dot turns into a something more lethal, be it laser or energy weapons fire.

I also see quite absurd that this same sand you throw agains one laser battry will not affect other incoming energy (or missile) fire. After all, unlike the anti missile point blank (be it beams or repulsors) fire, the sand cloud is not so precisely fired to affect only this laser beam.

This aside, if you want to keep them coherent with Bk2 and with the explanations, sandcasters are used to put a cloud between you and your enemy, so that energy from weapons will disperse (or missiles sensors fooled, akin of chaff) before it hits your ship. Of course, it would not be the main (nor the worst) incoherence between Bk2 and HG...).

OTOH, treating them as a screen keeps with this cloud concept, IMHO more logical than the point defense image HG gives. Of course, YMMV.

 

[robject]

Lasers go at light speed, and I guess most of the times you have no time to fire them (or for them to disperse enough) before the red dot turns into a something more lethal, be it laser or energy weapons fire.

The rules don't specify whether or not the beam is concentrated on the target for the entire 20 minutes, or if this represents saturation fire. If the former, then sand launched immediately after the attack begins is effective. If the latter, then sand simply has to be launched beforehand, like screens.

 

[McPerth]

The rules don't specify whether or not the beam is concentrated on the target for the entire 20 minutes, or if this represents saturation fire. If the former, then sand launched immediately after the attack begins is effective. If the latter, then sand simply has to be launched beforehand, like screens.

I see quite difficult for the beam to be concentrated on the target for the entire 20 min, and it could only be posible in beam lasers, as other energy weapons (Plasers included) are pulses.

And, in any case, I see quite illogical that the sand launched against one battery is ineffective agains other incoming beams/missiles incoming more or less simultaneously (unlike anti missile point defense, that aims the specific missiles incoming), the same way as chaff affects all incoming missiles, not only the ones agains which you launch them, unlike PD anti-missile fire.

 

[Vladika]

I see quite difficult for the beam to be concentrated on the target for the entire 20 min, and it could only be posible in beam lasers, as other energy weapons (Plasers included) are pulses.

And, in any case, I see quite illogical that the sand launched against one battery is ineffective agains other incoming beams/missiles incoming more or less simultaneously (unlike anti missile point defense, that aims the specific missiles incoming), the same way as chaff affects all incoming missiles, not only the ones agains which you launch them, unlike PD anti-missile fire.

I think we've heard that Sandcasters are like giant shotguns? If so, turrets spread over an 100 meters or so of ship could act as point defense. One fires at a beam and another to a separate beam hitting 50 meters way?

Also, assuming the cloud screen analogy, the moment the target ship maneuvers, to ANY degree, it moves away from it's protective screen. The moment you use agility to zig, zag or jog, you lose the screen effect. Under HG2 I'd rather use agility rather than a sandcaster!

(Agility raises yet another question I've never considered before; wouldn't all that zigging, zagging or jogging effect the firing ships aim? Much like a rifleman firing from a truck bed while bouncing over rough terrain? Maybe that is what the 20 minute firing window is for; picking the exact right, or best, moment to take the shot? If that is the case, if neither the firing ship or the target are maneuvering relative to one another, shouldn't there be more firing in that 20 minute time frame?)

 

[McPerth]

I think we've heard that Sandcasters are like giant shotguns? If so, turrets spread over an 100 meters or so of ship could act as point defense. One fires at a beam and another to a separate beam hitting 50 meters way?

And how do you aim it at a pulse laser (an enervy pulse that hits you before you can even detect it, as it goes at light speed).

Remember we're not talking about a single sandcaster, but about batteries of up to 30 turrets, stopping also battries of up to 30 lasr turrets, that I guess don't affect all of them the same spot of your ship. TO b effective, the cloud must be more or less complete.

Also, assuming the cloud screen analogy, the moment the target ship maneuvers, to ANY degree, it moves away from it's protective screen. The moment you use agility to zig, zag or jog, you lose the screen effect. Under HG2 I'd rather use agility rather than a sandcaster!

You don't fire a single shoot with them, but maintain the cloud protecting your ship.

(Agility raises yet another question I've never considered before; wouldn't all that zigging, zagging or jogging effect the firing ships aim? Much like a rifleman firing from a truck bed while bouncing over rough terrain? Maybe that is what the 20 minute firing window is for; picking the exact right, or best, moment to take the shot? If that is the case, if neither the firing ship or the target are maneuvering relative to one another, shouldn't there be more firing in that 20 minute time frame?)

Same happens with sandcaster clouds :devil:...

In any case, unlike your soldier in a truck, those weapons are linked to the central computer, that controls agility and may compensate on he wepons' aim.

 

[Vladika]

And how do you aim it at a pulse laser (an enervy pulse that hits you before you can even detect it, as it goes at light speed).

I've always assumed that little, if any, damage occurs between initial hit, detection and counter-fire. If that isn't true then point defense sandcasters would be useless.

Remember we're not talking about a single sandcaster, but about batteries of up to 30 turrets, stopping also battries of up to 30 lasr turrets, that I guess don't affect all of them the same spot of your ship. TO b effective, the cloud must be more or less complete.

That would be true. Also why sandcasters are so minimally effective.

You don't fire a single shoot with them, but maintain the cloud protecting your ship.

Ah! An how exactly does this occur when you fire one canister at a time from the launcher (holding three ready rounds)? Therein lies the rub...

In any case, unlike your soldier in a truck, those weapons are linked to the central computer, that controls agility and may compensate on he wepons' aim.

That does make a strong case for bigger, better, computers.

 

[Vladika]

In all honesty, under HG2, warship to warship combat, I find sandcasters useless. The only exception being "filling out the USP". THAT is their best defense, and you only need one turret for that to be effective as your ship will be combat ineffective relatively quickly if fired upon by Meson Spinals.

Otherwise I want OFFENSIVE weapons to reduce an opponent's ability to fire on me as quickly as possible. Given the option of an extra 50dt missile bay (or turrets), I'll take that over sand any day.

If I have some extra hardpoints, for whatever reason, or to few EPs remaining, I'll tack on a few sandcasters, but I won't waste hull volume or hardpoints on loading them on.