Fixing High Guard... again

[Jeffr0]

Okay, guys...

Rule 1: Fighters and other ships may form squadrons to create batteries. I almost want to require some sort of roll for this (sorta like the repair rolls)-- allowing this stuff to go ad-hoc is unfair to ships that are limited to whatever battery arrangements they are constructed with.

Rule 2: Armor limits on small ships/boats. Let's go all out with the hard core surface area rules.

Rule 3: More weapon options-- in the tradition of The OZ.

Rule 4: An actual scenario for TCS tournaments with an operational component-- in order to address sensor rules (for Hal and co), gas giant refueling, etc.

Rule 5: One more range band: Long... Short... and then Suicide range? If you are at short range and want to move it to Suicide... you can. There are additional bonuses to to-hit rolls maybe... and all weapons get to fire twice...? [I want something that can speed up the games and make them a little more violent.] Certain weapons get DM shifts on their damage rolls, too. [This one is my idea... and probably the worst one on the list.]

Can all of this be synthesized into something that people will actually play...? Is #1 so necessary if we are really nice to fighters in the operational stage with #4? Can we start thinking about all of the house rules at one time... and fit them together into a well-designed game...?

 

[Hal]

Jeff0?

One of the things I dislike about the houserule for allowing fighters to band together as a single battery is that it unfairly penalizes actual ship hulls within the game.

For example? In order to achieve a Missile-6 attack factor utilizing TL 12 technology, one needs to have a total of 10 triple turrets banded together as a battery. On a ship's hull, that requires a hull size of at least 1,000 dtons in order to have 10 hard points.

The SMALLEST hull therefor, in order to achieve a single Missile-6 battery, is going to have a size 1,000 dton hull, or a to hit penalty of -1.

Contrast this against a squadron of Fighters (10) with a single hardpoint of triple missiles. Give them 10 fighters with a -2 to hit size penalty, the ability to form into a Missile-6 battery, and they are better than the Single 1,000 dton hull.

Suggested limitation on Fighter hulls banding together into a single battery?

All fighters that wish to join into a single battery, utilize the agility of the slowest fighter joining the battery formation. Fighters flying in formation, do so at a cost equal to 1 agility for every 5 fighters (or fraction thereof) engaged in formation flying. Thus, 4 fighters flying in formation automatically spend 1 agility to do so. 6 Fighters cost 2 agility to do so.

Max number of fighters that can join into a formation are 1 squadron of 10 fighters.

The reason ships can't engage in flying formation and linking up into batteries is because the concentration of hardpoints required to satisfy the battery formation rules are not possible to match for hulls 100+ and larger. (or so the technobabble would have us believe).

Ultimately, any rule you devise for the use of fighter batteries will need to stand the test of "If fighters can do it, why can't small craft of 200 dtons do it? If 200 dton craft can do it, why can't 400 dton craft do it? Round and round it goes

 

[Jeffr0]

**NOTE:

These house rules will not be used in any tournament I'm running unless the are clearly noted up front and provided in a carefully written rules draft.

 

[Enoff]

I would say squadrons couldn't be created ad hoc, not just any fighters can group together.

All fighters would have to be of the same type and squadrons would be permanent organizations located at a base.

Perhaps squadrons have to have a specific program or something like an Oracle interface to coordinate themselves together.

 

[The Oz]

Okay, guys...

Rule 1: Fighters and other ships may form squadrons to create batteries. I almost want to require some sort of roll for this (sorta like the repair rolls)-- allowing this stuff to go ad-hoc is unfair to ships that are limited to whatever battery arrangements they are constructed with.

I like using "squadron rules" just to keep things simpler. I'd much rather keep track of 30 heavy fighter squadrons than 300 individual fighters. I point out that such a rule would =not= make legacy fighter designs obsolete.

Rule 2: Armor limits on small ships/boats. Let's go all out with the hard core surface area rules.

I like this as fighters should not be running around with the same armor as superdreadnoughts. But it would/might invalidate some legacy designs.

Rule 3: More weapon options-- in the tradition of The OZ.

As much as I like my own ideas, this is something that would only be for a new campaign being built from scratch, as it invalidates just about all legacy designs.

Rule 4: An actual scenario for TCS tournaments with an operational component-- in order to address sensor rules (for Hal and co), gas giant refueling, etc.

An excellent idea. Perhaps a place to start looking would be at those rules for ancients miniatures that allow "flanking" manuevers based on the number of "scouting" troops in each army? Again, such a rule addition would not automatically invalidate legacy designs.

Rule 5: One more range band: Long... Short... and then Suicide range? If you are at short range and want to move it to Suicide... you can. There are additional bonuses to to-hit rolls maybe... and all weapons get to fire twice...? [I want something that can speed up the games and make them a little more violent.] Certain weapons get DM shifts on their damage rolls, too. [This one is my idea... and probably the worst one on the list.]

Actually this is one of the best ideas. I've seen it called Visual Range or Point-Blank range. I like the versions where the starships get a "second shot" at any fighters closing to this range first, before the fighters get their attack. Usually it involves getting rid of the agility modifier (and sometimes the relative computer modifier) because of the short range.

Can all of this be synthesized into something that people will actually play...? Is #1 so necessary if we are really nice to fighters in the operational stage with #4? Can we start thinking about all of the house rules at one time... and fit them together into a well-designed game...?

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

I should point out that this re-write effort is an attempt to make fighters more useful in only two of HG2's nine tech levels.

Fighters are already both useful and deadly up to, roughly, TL13 when they begin to lose in the computer-weapon-powerplant matchups. For any given budget and at TL12 and below, fighters can routinely mission kill all but the most specialized warships in a single combat round.

While I applaud any effort to provide an operational level space combat wargame for Traveller, I am unsure about the necessity of tinkering with HG2 just so people can play with fighters at tech levels 14 and 15.


Regards,
Bill

 

[BillDowns]

This close to starting the 10 BCr battles, I am unsure about the wisdom of monkeying with High Guard. I have had a number of mods I have used way in the past, but, I may also have simply had bad opponents. This upcoming tournament is shaping up to be a good one, and I think there will be many lessons learned.

So, at this point, the only rule I would propose would be a "task force" rule. A fleet can be split into task forces, with separate initiatives for each. Range is determined each TF stating their preferred range, starting with the lowest initiative and working to the highest. Might need some tinkering with this, but that's the basis. A given turn could have forces at short range and long range both.

 

[far-trader]

This close to starting the 10 BCr battles, I am unsure about the wisdom of monkeying with High Guard.

See Jeff's post (#3) above. This is not for the 10BCr tourney (afaik).

We're having enough fun hashing out some fuel and drop tank issues for that already:rofl:

Everything here is just ideas stage for now I think.

 

[rancke]

Oh, the combat rules. Not the ship design or character generation.


Meh...


Hans

 

[Icosahedron]

Hi guys,
I've had rules like these for many years, though I've never thoroughly playtested them. Here's a few more ideas to ponder:

Craft may form into flights, flights into squadrons and squadrons into groups. Each formation move lasts one turn, during which the fighters cannot fire. Units may disperse into smaller units or individual craft in one turn.

Agility for any unit is one less than its least agile member.

Close range is defined as within a large ship's turning circle, maybe within its overall dimensions.
To enter close range, craft must
a. be less than 1% of the larger ship's tonnage
b. have broken through any fighter swarm protecting the ship
c. have the initiative

At close range, the large ship may not engage with its spinal mount, may not engage with bays except with a successful ship tactics roll, may not engage with more than half the current bays or turrets.

What do you think?

 

[far-trader]

Better Explanation of Damage Results

No doubt edited to make it fit on just one LBB page I've long thought it could use an expansion and a little better internal consistency (and possibly expansion*).

I offer this take as a quick draft for discussion (new/changes in red):

-------

EXPLANATION OF DAMAGE RESULTS

If an indicated damage location on a ship does not exist, the damage is rerolled.

Bridge Destroyed: The ship may not maneuver or jump. It fires and is fired upon as if its computer were half its actual factor (rounding down - see Computer Destroyed if result is zero). If the ship has an auxiliary bridge then command may be transferred to it, negating the effects.

Computer-n: The USP computer factor is reduced by n. If this result is rolled on the radiation damage table, and the computer is a fib version, the damage is ignored. The ship may only jump up to the reduced factor of the computer. See Computer Destroyed when reduced to zero.

Computer Destroyed: The USP computer factor is reduced to zero. The ship may not jump, although it may continue to fire weapons, with an effective computer size 0, and maneuver.

Crew-n: The USP crew factor is reduced by n. Upon reduction of the crew factor to one-half its initial level the ship may no longer fire its weapons, use its passive defenses, or attempt repair. It may only maneuver or jump. This result does not affect the frozen watch or ship's troops and is negated by using one frozen watch replacement if available.

Critical: Roll again on the critical hit table. Reduce the ship's USP armor factor by one for each critical hit received.

Frozen Watch / Ship's Troops Dead: On a die roll of 1-3, all personnel in low berths of one frozen watch are dead; on a roll of 4-6, one half of the ship's troops (marines and security troops) are dead.

Fuel-n: Current fuel is reduced by n% of total fuel capacity (at least 10 tons). See Fuel Tanks Shattered if fuel is reduced to zero.

-------

NEW OPTION:

Fuel-n: Current available power plant or jump fuel tank USP, firing player's choice, is reduced by the indicated amount. No tank may receive additional hits until the other has received equal hits or is shattered. See Fuel Tank Shattered if fuel is reduced to zero.

Fuel Tank Shattered: One of (power plant or jump drive) the fuel tanks on the ship is lost and may not be refueled until repaired. The ship may not jump in the first case and no ship systems requiring energy may operate in the second case (see Power Plant Disabled).

Fuel Tank USP calculation. Each ship adds a 2 digit note to the USP string for fuel. Power Plant Fuel in weeks, and Jump Drive Fuel in parsecs. Using fuel in normal operations reduces the USP values, as do combat hits per above. Refueling restores the USP values. Drop tanks, dismountable tanks, and collapsible tanks are noted separately as they are subject to different damage and usage.

-------

Fuel Tanks Shattered: All fuel on the ship is lost and the ship may not be refueled until repaired. The ship may not jump and no ship systems requiring energy may operate. See Power Plant Disabled.

Hangars / Boat Deck Destroyed: One launch facility(from one allowed per 10,000tons of ship, plus any added launch tubes) and all associated ships still aboard are destroyed. If the ship is a dispersed structure one single external mounting and any associated ship still aboard is destroyed. Recovery of ships by a destroyed facility is impossible.

Interior Explosion: Roll again on the interior explosion table.

Jump-n: The USP jump factor is reduced by the indicated amount.

Jump Drive Disabled: The USP jump factor is reduced to zero.

Maneuver-n: The USP maneuver factor is reduced by the indicated amount. Agility (standard and emergency) is also reduced by the indicted amount. See Maneuver Drive disabled if reduced to zero.

Maneuver Drive Disabled: The USP maneuver factor is reduced to zero. Agility is zero. Spinal Mount weapons cannot be brought to bear so they may not target ships.

One Screen Disabled: One screen (nuclear damper, meson screen, or black globe) of the firing player's choice has its USP factor reduced to zero.

Power-n: The USP power plant factor is reduced by the indicated amount. Agility (standard and emergency) is also reduced by the indicted amount. See Power Plant disabled if reduced to zero.

Power Plant Disabled: The USP power plant factor is reduced to zero. The ship may not jump or maneuver, or use energy weapons or defenses (only sand and missiles are allowed), and the computer is treated as zero.

Screen-n: The USP factor for one screen (nuclear damper, meson screen, or black globe) selected by the firing player is reduced by the indicated amount. No screen may receive additional hits until all other screens have received equal hits or are disabled.

Ship Vaporized: The ship is utterly destroyed. One Launch Step is allowed to abandon ship.

Spinal Mount / Fire Control Out: On a die roll of 1-3, the USP spinal mount factor is reduced to zero; on a roll of 4-6, fire control is out, and no weapons, either offensive (laser, energy weapon, meson gun, particle accelerator, or missile) or defensive (sandcasters, or repulsors), except the spinal mount may fire.

Weapon-n: Each -n destroys one battery of weapons, either offensive (spinal mount, laser, energy weapon, meson gun, particle accelerator, or missile) or defensive (sandcasters, or repulsors) unless the ship has only one battery of a type. Then each -n reduces its USP factor by the indicated amount. The firing player chooses which weapons are affected, but no weapon type may receive additional hits until all other weapon types have received equal hits or are disabled.


-------


* Among the omissions is a damage location for cargo holds. Sure, not much of an issue for most HG scenarios but a bit of a glaring one for an RPG. My simple fix for this is replace the Damage Table result of "22+ No Effect" with "22+ Cargo Hold Destroyed"

Cargo Hold Destroyed: One cargo hold (from a total separate holds allowed of one designated per 10,000tons of ship) and all associated contents still aboard are destroyed. If the ship is a dispersed structure carrying external cargo containers then one single external mounting and associated cargo container still aboard is destroyed.

 

[Jeffr0]

Rule 1 Comment: The point of ad-hoc fleet "battery" formation is NOT to make fighters "useful". It's to make outclassed vessels at least somewhat dangerous to "impenetrable" and "unhitable" ships. It is also to make the game more playable in a pencil and paper situation. I think there should be some sort of skill roll here (like in the repair rules)-- probably leadership and computer skill rolls. And maybe some sort of chart or formula could be rigged up for conversion: 42 weapons that normally hit on 13+ can combine to hit on a 11+. Something like that. I can't be the first to suggest something like this.

Rule 4 Comment: The "Operational" range... players could divide their fleets into different groups. Fighters and other ships could be sown around and lie in wait. There could be a guerrilla warfare phase with chances for ambushes. I wouldn't want to upset the balance between missile and laser weapons by adding the "Close" range band. So there may be a chance for a double missile attack at long range-- perhaps with a bonus to penetrate if there's a surprise factor. Ships would have different readiness levels and pay a fuel penalty if they are at "condition red" for hours on end. There would be two ways to handle this: abstract... and with a full-on hex map... or maybe "lanes" of travel between the major points of interest. Ships waiting around in the high traffic areas will get passed rather quickly depending on the speed of the travelling vessels.... Depending on the sensor warfare rolls... the ambushers may get a couple of good shots off with to-hit and/or penetration bonuses... with less chance of getting hit in return. For the abstract game... there could be a set of bonuses based on your strategy skill level and your number of sensor platforms.... If you do well with those rolls... you find your opponent and get set up with a slight advantage: you get more ships on the first turns of battle... and you both continue to roll to see which of your forces arrive each turn.

Rule 6: The damage allocation system (particularly with Weapon hits) is flawed for a couple of reasons: it is weird and it requires player input that is inconvienient. I wouldn't mind a fully deterministic system that maybe borrows a little from the TNE system. In fact, I'd almost go so far as to keep the High Guard ratings and damage results (they're just too fundamental to the game) but use the TNE "sphere of allocation" system to figure out where stuff is hitting. Maybe not quite that far, but something along those lines. OF COURSE, the reason the High Guard designers went with the hinky system was to keep things simple and not force players to recalculate USP ratings constantly. But if you had a decent ship record sheet.... Yeah... I want a visually appealing play aide here, I admit it.

 

[Jeffr0]

If an indicated damage location on a ship does not exist, the damage is rerolled.

Is that in the rules...?

That would change things a bit if it were.

Edit: Guess not. This is a really dangerous entry. Will anyone remember what the 'real' rule is after this...?

 

[far-trader]

Is that in the rules...?

That would change things a bit if it were.

Edit: Guess not. This is a really dangerous entry. Will anyone remember what the 'real' rule is after this...?

That's why I put "rerolled" in red

I like dangerous. Dangerous is fun :devil:

(besides, after going all the way through hitting and penetrating it seems unfair that a shot just whistles through a ship just because they didn't have any screens... )

Bob and Bob are sitting in the ship's cafeteria, yes as the battle wages, it's tea time. Suddenly a barrage of nuclear missiles fly through, managing to not spill any tea, in one door as it opens, and out another which also politely (and in a self preserving mood) opens.

Bob "I say, good thing we didn't install that meson screen or nuclear damper in here!"

Bob "Quite. More tea?"

 

[Whipsnade]

Rule 1 Comment: The point of ad-hoc fleet "battery" formation is NOT to make fighters "useful". It's to make outclassed vessels at least somewhat dangerous to "impenetrable" and "unhitable" ships.

Jeffr0,

I'd suggest that fighters fall into your "outclassed" ship category.

The proposed rule is a good one and deserves further study. It may lessen the "rock-paper-scissors" quandary HG2 ship design naturally falls into.

As good as the rule change may be however, it has no place in your 10BCr and TCS tournaments. No place yet, that is.


Regards,
Bill

 

[BillDowns]

Bob and Bob are sitting in the ship's cafeteria, yes as the battle wages, it's tea time. Suddenly a barrage of nuclear missiles fly through, managing to not spill any tea, in one door as it opens, and out another which also politely (and in a self preserving mood) opens.

Bob "I say, good thing we didn't install that meson screen or nuclear damper in here!"

Bob "Quite. More tea?"

:rofl:

In general, here are my thoughts:
Rule 1: Allow "squadron batteries" only for formally organized fighter or battle rider squadrons. All the participants MUST originate from the same carrier or from a space station, ground station, etc.

Rule 2: In my mind, the simplest fix for armor is the oft-mentioned "limit by size code of vessel" rule.

Rule 3: Oz's bays are fine, another option would be to go all out and allow totally custom bays. Yet another option is formatio of multiple bays into batteries.

Rule 4: still thinking

Rule 5: I have used the Point-blank, knife-range, whatever you want to call it and it does need tweaks for modifiers.

Rule 6 (new rule!): some way of handling task forces, as I mentioned before.

Rule 7 (stolen from far-trader): reroll damage if the damage location does not exist.

Rule 8 (again from far-trader): revised Crew hit rules

Rule 9 (my own new rule): any ship can be designated as an escort to another ship, as long as the escort is 60% smaller than the covered ship. The escort's weapons may only be used to provide defensive fire for shots aimed at the covered ship. The escort may not provide offensive fire.

Oh, that's enough for now.

 

[skyth]

Two things would make High Guard a better combat system-

12's automatically succeed on a hit/pen roll.

Armor only gives +1/2 DM per level on the damage tables.

 

[Maccat]

1: Fighters and others form squadrons

2: small boat armor limits

3: TCS Operational eg sensor, gas giant

4: Short range band

1: Fighters and others form squadrons
Personally, the issue for me was ground installations, example an ADA missile battery. I treated the missiles as same as ship ones, and Mercenary has *Computer Fire Control Systems* same size as ship computers, but half cost. Fire direction control systems might be a way to do the squadron/grouping fire thing, has a weight cost and energy point requirement (in addition to the regular computer), which would serve to limit fighters computers even more (hmm.) Idea would be 6 ATVs with missile launchers and a CFCS to make a battery 1FF5. This would have the vehicle with one the squadron leader. I see issues with how hits taken on a squadron are resolved.
One workaround i had was a robotic ship as a torpedo, using the missiles supplement, ships in collision (ramming) do 20 hits per ton for 3G, 40hits per ton for 6G <s>. That using mass versus volume, which would be (crazy) higher.

2: small boat armor limits
meh. never seemed an issue to me, maybe it's a problem at like TLF, but then it takes a pretty high fire factor to even be able to hit a small boat.

3: TCS Operational eg sensor, gas giant
This one alone could use a whole thread (again) lol. I like using computer model as computer and sensors, can justify having above jump number requirement on some ships as scouts/survey/exploratory vessels. As regards detection and such, the real issues there would be like hiding on an asteroid or something, or going unpowered, but even that may not work. Space is big and empty and nowhere to hide. As regards like weapon ranges, that could be scaled to whatever units anyone wants. Some stuff for being in atmosphere, over the horizon, in orbit and such would help a lot i think. could allow for streamlined ships to play skip the pond or somesuch for tactical advantage. But all that feels more LBB2 to me, HG big fleet actions. Maybe like to picket a world/gg requires at least 3 ships. Travel distances alone in system make a lot of problems for tactical deployment.

TCS Campaign Rules pg39 :"Streamlined or partially streamlined ships are also capable of refueling from a gas giant during battle. The ship must be part of the reserve during the operation, and if interrupted is considered not refueled. One pass through the gas giant's atmosphere is sufficient to fill all tanks and takes 7 turns. Fuel may be transferred between ships in two turns."

4: Short range band. er, ultra short.

Pet peeves about HG i have, and thoughts about this "fixing" stuff:
A lot of the problems in HG happen when people have all Ag6 ships which they do to not be hit so much by the big mean FF9 missiles and mesons and PAs and such. Max computers for the same reason, only there TL effects can make a higher TL fleet unhittable entirely. Then there's the super armor, where even if you do hit it has no effect, or can't even slow it down.
A *fighter* to my mind, /2 computer so no energy points, 4G max. this enables them to hit each other.
What if 4G was the max for anything boat or starship? (or would -1/2 agility work?)
Looking at the armor tables, Armor 10 enables a chance for a maneuver-1 hit on a 2. I'd lean more toward armor 8, a 17% chance, ~ "1/6 hits you may hit the rudder", but somewhere in there, just limit armor to that maximum.
The computer hit mod issue. I actually like the idea of being able to out-calculate the opponent, but for fighters and other smaller craft it can be very challenging to design a high computer in, leads to *extreme* fighter bloat solely for the computer. Large ships invariably have max computer. What if computer power requirements were (computermodel*.01m) i.e. 1%shipmass per model number. Then an Ag6 max comp ship would need a lot more power for it. Or maybe limit computer model to jump, though that would favor high jump ships in combat, which seems a bit off to me. Almost easier as in the Agility n Armor, to limit max computer. If 4G max, hm this is a lot trickier. say /3 max for smaller than 2kt, /4 max 2kt+. This enables everything to at least hit everything. Would still need the higher computer for Jump purposes.
All of this makes combat a LOT more deadly though, and it already is pretty bad. But it would go toward eliminating the whole unhittable ship, immune if hit ship. Maybe add in armor affects meson hits as well for that matter, especially if the armor is limited. figure "contained by bulkhead" effect. I think these changes egads would have to try stuff out see how it all works out, it may totally trash some aspect of HG, but think it would favor more diverse ship sizes (vs the Crits as opposed to 'armoring up') and weapon mixes (now a laser battery has a shot!) more smaller fire factors for anti fighter fire.
Oh and lasers should be able to fire twice in a round using doublefire, making the roll for it as in LBB2. then 2 chances for defensive missile fire, or a defense and offense, or 2 offense!
Caveat; these are just thoughts on all this, no intent to re-write HG by any means lol! One of the reasons i tend to stay at TLC/D is because the max computer issue is reduced, armor actually costs you a fair percentage if maxxed (and MCr as well, and is limited), power plants at 3%/Pn add up quick weight and cost wise as well. For this TCS 10BCr at TL 12, w/J3 any Ag6 ship has no tonnage to spare for *any* armor, which seems right to me anyhow.
When it's 1% for power, armor, and /9 max, it gets broken to my mind. Add in the Factor Ts for that matter as well lol.

 

[Rev Round]

Well...... I know it's not the rules as they stand but....

Limitations on numbers of missiles fired should be based on ship volume and capacity for guidance from ship.

Those wooden walled ships would have been severely limited by arbitrary games rules if the original designers had not been pragmatic. 1 hardpoint per 100 tons with regards to missiles is silly.

Sorry but someone had to say it

 

[tbeard1999]

Two things would make High Guard a better combat system-

12's automatically succeed on a hit/pen roll.

Armor only gives +1/2 DM per level on the damage tables.

I think that allowing 12's to automatically hit would enable "sandblaster" tactics, wherein hordes of lightly armored craft can defeat battleships (this would especially be the case if you made the suggested change to the damage table). At the end of the day, I don't think that I'd care for such a game. To analogize, no quantity of machinegun armed motorboats can seriously endanger the USS New Jersey.

Now, I do have some complaints about HG -- armor being the main one. As I've noted in an extensive past thread, surface area does not scale with volume, so HG's armor system is fundamentally flawed. It allows (at TL15) virtually unkillable small craft, which is absurd. No fighter (or gun boat) can possibly carry the same thickness of armor as a million ton dreadnought. The fix isn't too difficult IMHO, but it is a hassle.

Limiting armor to size codes has problems, but it is (a) simple; (b) better than nothing. The main problem is that TL15 fighters cannot carry any better armor than (say) TL9 fighters. Since the primary Real World limitation should be armor mass, this is a severe distortion. A better system would be to establish a base limit for each size, then allow a bonus for TL. This is complicated by the fact that the HG armor rating system is logarithmic (per Striker). However, this mainly causes distortions at the small end of the HG scale, so I'd ignore it. For reference, here's the armor rating that should be allowed (assuming a TL7-9 ship of the indicated size is limited to 1 point of armor):

TL7-9: 1
TL10-11: 1.33
TL12-13: 2
TL14-15: 4

Theretically, higher baselines should be multiplied. But this would make a mockery of the system very quickly. So I'd add +1 to the size code at TL12-13 and +2 to the size code at TL14+.

I'd also like to ditch the 2d6 system due to the fact that it is extremely unfriendly to the typical large volleys that one finds in a typical HG engagement. However, electronic die rolling tools are fast making this a moot point for me personally. This one is superb.

But it seems to me that a lot of the complaints (and I could be wrong) are centered on the fact that a TL15 ship can utterly paste a TL13 ship (for instance).

Well, my opinion is that this is how it should be. Consider naval history for instance.

At TL3, the primary warship was a 3500 ton wooden sailing ship mounting 100+ 24 lb or 32 lb smoothbore cannon. (HMS Victory for instance).

At early TL4, the 3500-5000 ton wooden warship got steam propulsion and a smaller number of far heavier guns capable of firing 80lb+ explosive shells. (USS Minnesota for instance).

At mid TL4, the ship became an ironclad and was effectively immune from fire from previous TLs. Only massive smoothbores firing solid shot (relatively few in number due to size and cost) could penetrate their armor. (USS Monitor; HMS Warrior for instance).

At late TL4, 10,000 ton pre-dreadnought warships, mounting 4-6 huge rifled guns, 6-10 medium guns and a two dozen or so small guns appeared. (USS Oregon for instance).

At TL5, 27,000-35,000 ton dreadnoughts mounting 8-12 rifled guns of 12-16" appeared.

At TL6, battleships of up to 65,000 tons, mounting 9 16-18" guns were common. Engagement ranges of 15-25 miles were attained.

At TL7+, surface ships mounting cruise missiles could hit targets hundreds of miles away.

*Any* ship of any of these tech levels would be overwhelmed by a ship just 1 tech level away. So I don't have a problem with the same phenominon in High Guard.