[HG] Designing a TL12 fleet

[The Oz]

Armor is nice for preventing automatic critical hits from spinal PAWs; at TL13 the biggest PAW is factor-R so any 100kton+ ship is safe as it is, and even most cruisers will only need 4 to 6 factors of armor for protection (which is also all the armor they'll need for protection against nuke missile hits, too).

Really heavy armor is only needed for "doorstops" as I call them, Bill called them "turtles." These are ships intended to hold off the enemy for one HG combat turn while the rest of the fleet runs away. In classic HG ship design they are called "rocks."

If it's desired to make big ships viable in a universe with spinal meson guns I would suggest looking at the house rules for having meson screens act as "armor" against meson guns. These rules reduce the "one-shot-zot" effect of spinal meson guns while still letting them have serious killing power (since meson guns are the only weapon that always gets to roll on the Internal Explosions table). At TL13 the biggest meson gun is the factor-P which gets 15 damage rolls; a factor-3 meson screen (the best TL13 screen) would reduce the number of rolls to 12 and give a +3DM on the damage tables, just enough to prevent rolled critical hits. This way meson guns would still do lots of internal explosions (making redundant systems really important) but not blow up the ship.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
RoS,

Please do not worry [...]

Ok, that all makes a great deal more sense.

At least, the combat part does.

------------------

I'd never considered installing backup nuclear dampers and meson screens, though.

HG2 p.28. "The weapons and screens installed on a ship may not consume more energy points that the power plant generates."

It does not say anything about whether any of those systems are on or off (indeed, the weapons are off the vast majority of the time), it only imposes the limit.

I have always also taken this to mean that EPs must be available in sufficient quantity for all backup computers, as well.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I'd never considered installing backup nuclear dampers and meson screens, though.

{snip}

It does not say anything about whether any of those systems are on or off (indeed, the weapons are off the vast majority of the time), it only imposes the limit.

I have always also taken this to mean that EPs must be available in sufficient quantity for all backup computers, as well.

RoS,

I didn't design the BBs used in the smoke test. A fellow named Russell did.

I always read that rule to mean that EPs must be available for systems in use. The EP requirement also keeps HG2{/i] battles from becoming energy management contests ala SFB. (After powerplant damage, a HG2player may haveto manage his vessel's energy budget but that is rare.)

It's pretty clear that backups aren't in use at all times. Backups don't figure in combat until the original system's USP code drops below the backup's USP code. You don't get to install two sets of dampers; one at code 6 and one at code 5, power both and use both against incoming nuc-missiles. Ditto with meson screens.

So to my mind, the requirement that backup systems must to have USP codes below the original's USP codes and the fact that you can't use two screens of the same type in the same combat round strongly infers that backups are not 'on line' all the time.

I could very well be wrong and did misinterpret part of the armor rules for close to 20 years. I'd thought your total armor was limited to your TL; armor 9 at TL9, armor C at TLC, etc. The actual armor rule states very clearly that your added armor is limited to your TL, thus allowing planetoids and buffered planetoids to be armored 3 and 6 factors above their TL respectively.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
RainOfSteel and Ptah, thanks for pointing out the need for high Agility on warships. The manouver would probably be 6 max now.

It's worse than you think.

At TL-12, the mass requirements of armor are horrible (even though, IMO, you still have to squeeze out a point or two for medium ships). Agility is great.

However, given the tonnage to nomenclature ratio you have constructed, this somewhat puts you in a bind. The HG2 design sequence is really built with the Supplement 9: Fighting Ships tonnage/nomenclature system in mind. Your "cruisers" are 20 kdTons, vs. the 50 kdTons in S9:FS. You have a lot less room left over after percentage driven components (like armor) for things like small craft, bays, spinal mounts, and little things like staterooms for those few score extra troops. I used to design TL-15 ships and frequently ran out of space. TL-12 is much tougher.

I admit it gives you several areas for "design philosophy", and maybe some war will come along to "teach some people a lesson", as war frequently tends to do.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
By selecting the best of the High Guard house rules that have appeared over the years you should be able to get the effect you're after.

I started collecting all the various modifications together, but unfortunately it is buried in a thread I have long since forgotten the title of

Here's a thread by E 2-4601 I think either you or The Oz (I only remember the rising earth avatar

) sent to me in my first days here. Is it in here?

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/CotI/Discuss/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001422

 

[The Oz]

Backup systems of any kind (computer, screens, drives, whatever) produce no EPs (or anything else) or use any EPs until they are put in operation to replace the main system. This is from TCS, p. 15 "Spare Systems."

"...the backup device does not consume fuel or energy points while it is not in use."

Big ships need redundant systems to make use of their damage control advantage. While the DC teams are fixing the main system, the backup keeps the ship from being vaporized.

Since with larger meson guns it's possible to get several hits on important systems in one turn (especially the meson screen and computer) it's necessary to have several backups (at least two backups plus the main) to allow the ship to absorb damage and keep fighting.

All of this depends on using the house rule about meson screens acting as armor, of course. If that house rule is not used, powerful spinal meson guns make big ships too vulnerable for their cost.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Armor is nice for preventing automatic critical hits from spinal PAWs; at TL13 the biggest PAW is factor-R so any 100kton+ ship is safe as it is, and even most cruisers will only need 4 to 6 factors of armor for protection (which is also all the armor they'll need for protection against nuke missile hits, too).

Oops. I revise my earlier suggestion of armor- 7, I was mistaken in thinking nuclear missile-9 got the -6DM. Revision would be armor-4 to prevent critical and interior explosion hits from nuclear missiles and PAWs. Armor-6 would be nice to avoid Crew hits on the radiation table.

If it's desired to make big ships viable in a universe with spinal meson guns I would suggest looking at the house rules for having meson screens act as "armor" against meson guns. These rules reduce the "one-shot-zot" effect of spinal meson guns while still letting them have serious killing power (since meson guns are the only weapon that always gets to roll on the Internal Explosions table). At TL13 the biggest meson gun is the factor-P which gets 15 damage rolls; a factor-3 meson screen (the best TL13 screen) would reduce the number of rolls to 12 and give a +3DM on the damage tables, just enough to prevent rolled critical hits. This way meson guns would still do lots of internal explosions (making redundant systems really important) but not blow up the ship. [/qb]

I second that.

 

[Ptah]

E2-4601,
Do you have a spreadsheet you are using to design these HG ships?

 

[The Oz]

And if you =really= want to make bigger ships more viable in a HG setting, you could use my house rule for allowing smaller meson guns to be used in "turrets" for additional firepower.

This idea allows ships to mount additional spinal mounts that are of a size up to 1% of the ship's tonnage as "turrets." You have to made some modifications to the USP but you end up with more spinal mounts on one (tougher) hull.

I just did a quick and dirty design with HGS (thanks, Andrew!!!) and made a TL-13 200kton BB with a factor-P and two "turreted" factor-F meson guns, max computer and screens (with two backups for each), two bridges, Maneuver/Agility-4 and Jump-3, with factor-6 armor. If I fine-tuned it I could probably get another meson "turret" in there, or add a whole swarm of fighters, or something else useful.

If you want fighters to be useful without being overwhelming you might want to consider adding such things as dogfighting, distant interceptions, close escorts, and visual attack rules. Make so that =if= enemy fighters can get past the distant intercepts =and= get past the dogfighters in the close escort =and= survive the defensive fire of the ship =then= they can make a visual range attack (where computer differences need not apply, perhaps?) and really hurt their targets (maybe even picking what they hit?).

Don't make it easy, and don't make it cheap, but if a fighter visual-range attack just happened to knock out a flagship's main spinal mount at just the right time, or cripple the jump engines.....

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by The Oz:
And if you =really= want to make bigger ships more viable in a HG setting, you could use my house rule for allowing smaller meson guns to be used in "turrets" for additional firepower.

This idea allows ships to mount additional spinal mounts that are of a size up to 1% of the ship's tonnage as "turrets." You have to made some modifications to the USP but you end up with more spinal mounts on one (tougher) hull.

I like it. It conjures the vision of 19th early 20th century battleships with those massive 16 inch guns.

If you want fighters to be useful without being overwhelming you might want to consider adding such things as dogfighting, distant interceptions, close escorts, and visual attack rules. Make so that =if= enemy fighters can get past the distant intercepts =and= get past the dogfighters in the close escort =and= survive the defensive fire of the ship =then= they can make a visual range attack (where computer differences need not apply, perhaps?) and really hurt their targets (maybe even picking what they hit?).

Don't make it easy, and don't make it cheap, but if a fighter visual-range attack just happened to knock out a flagship's main spinal mount at just the right time, or cripple the jump engines.....

These are good ideas. After some mention in another thread of my escort rules I'll post here in The Fleet a modified HG-inspired combat sequence with escort considerations.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by The Oz:
And if you =really= want to make bigger ships more viable in a HG setting, you could use my house rule for allowing smaller meson guns to be used in "turrets" for additional firepower.

[...]

I am not at all sure I would allow "spinal mounts" in turrets.

Of course, I have already complained that as a fraction of the mass and volume they represent within a vessel, while they might be mounted along the spine of the ship, that is all it is, they are certainly not the spine of the ship.

I wonder, has anyone ever considered 200 dTon Bays? 1000 dTon Bays? Or my favorite, laser bays and spinal mounts?

 

[Scott Martin]

I have an issue with HG missiles:

They never run out of ammunition.

This is one of the main reasons that you would mount "energy" weapons on a ship, since it allows it to keep firing until it runso out of fuel, or loses all power. (Starfire had good "magazine" rules: I suspect that there are some decent HG variant rules as well)

One of the limitations using "later" systems is that they *did* require you to keep track of missile expenditures: your missile armed ships may kick butt in their first engagement, only to find that they have been "fired dry" while trying to return from their offensive strike, rendering them easy meat for those energy-armed pursuers.

Here are a couple of rules variants for escorts. They allows other ships to use their point defence to cover targets other than themselves, making escorts actually useful. This can be done a couple of ways, but I will offer the "easy" and "hard" ends of the spectrum. Both of these give fighters a role again, doubly so if you are using "squadron" batteries, since the fighters are usable defensively (to knock down missile spreads) and to clean up "cripples" that have taken hits to their computer, power or maneuver systems.

A very B-5 feel.
_______________________

Easy:
Designate your "line" ships (the ones that will be shooting at the other "line") and your "escort" ships for each "line" ship. Escorts are only allowed to fire to interdict missiles aimed at their "line" ship, or to attack ships breaking through if they did not fire in defence of their ship. "line" ships fire as per the usual rules, but can use the batteries of their escorts against any incoming missile fire. (Dampers protect ships as per the normal rules, dampers can only be used AFTER all other defensive fire is conducted)

Hard:
All missile fire is announced, and counter-fire against missiles is then announced *before* missiles hits are rolled. Missiles can be used in anti-missile roles using the "Beam" tables. All defensive fire is at +2 to counteract the "penalty" of engaging *all* missile fire, not just the missile fire that you know is going to hit. Dampers act normally after all defensive fire is resolved.
_______________________

You can combine these, with "pre-emptive" counterfire resolved in the first phase, and then the ship (or its escorts) firing without the -2 penalty, but we found that this took most of the "punch" out of missiles, since the cap ships would "pre-empt" the large batteries, and then the escorts would take the "leakers" with lots of crappy batteries in the Factor 4-6 range.

The "Hard" variant makes life interesting because you are trying to knock down *all* missiles fired that have any chance of penetrating, not just the ones that make their to-hit rolls.

It also makes folks nervous when there are a few dozen missile "leakers" which still have to make their "to hit" rolls. While they often require a "12" to hit, it still means that some of them are probably going to get through.

Depending on how nasty you want to be (and if you like faster combats) you can apply a +2 to hit on the escorts, since their role is to be "in harms way". This nicely offsets that -2 to hit fighters, and means that you need to figure out what proportion of your fighter wings are "strike" and which are "cover"

Another possibility is allowing missile fire at the reserve (with a -2 to hit) with ships in the line allowed to fire defensively. Again, this means that you want escorts to keep your tenders / carriers covered. (this variant is *not* playtested but should be familiar to anyone who has played "Harpoon")

I think that I like the idea of an "escort" box which would allow any ship in the "escort" role to counter-fire against any misslie launch. This would give HG battles three groups: "Reserve", "Line" and "Escort".

Scott Martin

<EDIT>
A clarification:
Breakthrough occurs if the *line* is broken, not the line and escorts: if a breakthrough occurs, any escorts that did not fire in protection of their cap ship can fire their weapons at ships breaking through (free shot) but since these batteries are generally not in the upper factor ranges, this is generally ineffective.
</EDIT>

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
I have an issue with HG missiles:

They never run out of ammunition.

This is one of the main reasons that you would mount "energy" weapons on a ship, since it allows it to keep firing until it runso out of fuel, or loses all power. (Starfire had good "magazine" rules: I suspect that there are some decent HG variant rules as well)

You are correct sir. IMTU you need a magazine. I assume 8 missiles are fired per missile factor per my 12.9 minute tactical combat turns. IMTU missiles are 0.125 dtons (you can make them larger but they become much easier to hit). Therefore 1 dton magazine = 1 turn factor of ammo.

EDIT Realized what I meant to say is 1 dton magazine per missile weapon so a factor 2 weapon (w/o TL modifier) would require 3 dtons per turn.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Oz:
And if you =really= want to make bigger ships more viable in a HG setting, you could use my house rule for allowing smaller meson guns to be used in "turrets" for additional firepower.

[...]

I am not at all sure I would allow "spinal mounts" in turrets.

Of course, I have already complained that as a fraction of the mass and volume they represent within a vessel, while they might be mounted along the spine of the ship, that is all it is, they are certainly not the spine of the ship.

I wonder, has anyone ever considered 200 dTon Bays? 1000 dTon Bays? Or my favorite, laser bays and spinal mounts? </font>[/QUOTE]To the last, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes but not in the strictest HG sense.

[excessive reply to simple OT question ]
I abstract mounts into turret and fixed. Fixed save a little space, about 25% is the number you can derive from HG, but suffer to hit penalties. Weapon ratings are on a power of 2 scale so a spinal version of any weapon can be made, however a factor F laser would be equivalent to 32,768 factor 1 lasers. The "classic" spinal weapons are not ameable to miniturization but are more damaging ton-per-ton at larger scale. That is there is a minimum tonnage in the design sequence.

I tend to abstract what a factor-9 turret battery actually looks like. Maybe it's a bunch of little turrets linked together, maybe its one big one.

One way I'm working this is I don't use hardpoints. A certain percentage of your ship can be dedicated to non-spinal weapons. This is based upon a new ship design parameter I call structure. Base structure is 2 based on base TL12 hull materials, and allows 1% of your ship to be dedicated to weapons. For each 2 points of structure increase you can add 1% weapon volume. Structure consumes ship volume in a non-linear fashion. Merchants often lower structure to 1 to save money and make more cargo room.

Spinal mounts don't come out of your weapon allotment due to structure (if they are under a certain % of volume) because they are the "spine" of your ship.
[/excessive reply to simple OT question]

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
RainOfSteel and Ptah, thanks for pointing out the need for high Agility on warships. The manouver would probably be 6 max now.

It's worse than you think.

At TL-12, the mass requirements of armor are horrible (even though, IMO, you still have to squeeze out a point or two for medium ships). Agility is great.

However, given the tonnage to nomenclature ratio you have constructed, this somewhat puts you in a bind. The HG2 design sequence is really built with the Supplement 9: Fighting Ships tonnage/nomenclature system in mind. Your "cruisers" are 20 kdTons, vs. the 50 kdTons in S9:FS. You have a lot less room left over after percentage driven components (like armor) for things like small craft, bays, spinal mounts, and little things like staterooms for those few score extra troops. I used to design TL-15 ships and frequently ran out of space. TL-12 is much tougher.

I admit it gives you several areas for "design philosophy", and maybe some war will come along to "teach some people a lesson", as war frequently tends to do. </font>[/QUOTE]Remember that my nomenculture list was a suggestion, a tentative attempt to build a fleet without having too much HG experience. It could change.

Also, remember that IMTU there are no known fleets with TL higher than 12; so everybody would be suffering the same limitations.

So, again, the weaknesses of HG; it works well for TL15, doesn't work well for lower TLs. As I said before, I don't have any other ship system at my disposal other than HG and LBB2, and LBB2 has problems with large amounts of turrets, among other things.

Originally posted by Ptah:
E2-4601,
Do you have a spreadsheet you are using to design these HG ships?

I'm using the HGS software.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:

_______________________

Easy:
Designate your "line" ships (the ones that will be shooting at the other "line") and your "escort" ships for each "line" ship. Escorts are only allowed to fire to interdict missiles aimed at their "line" ship, or to attack ships breaking through if they did not fire in defence of their ship. "line" ships fire as per the usual rules, but can use the batteries of their escorts against any incoming missile fire. (Dampers protect ships as per the normal rules, dampers can only be used AFTER all other defensive fire is conducted)

Hard:
All missile fire is announced, and counter-fire against missiles is then announced *before* missiles hits are rolled. Missiles can be used in anti-missile roles using the "Beam" tables. All defensive fire is at +2 to counteract the "penalty" of engaging *all* missile fire, not just the missile fire that you know is going to hit. Dampers act normally after all defensive fire is resolved.
_______________________

The "Hard" variant makes life interesting because you are trying to knock down *all* missiles fired that have any chance of penetrating, not just the ones that make their to-hit rolls.

It also makes folks nervous when there are a few dozen missile "leakers" which still have to make their "to hit" rolls. While they often require a "12" to hit, it still means that some of them are probably going to get through.

Depending on how nasty you want to be (and if you like faster combats) you can apply a +2 to hit on the escorts, since their role is to be "in harms way". This nicely offsets that -2 to hit fighters, and means that you need to figure out what proportion of your fighter wings are "strike" and which are "cover"

....

I think that I like the idea of an "escort" box which would allow any ship in the "escort" role to counter-fire against any misslie launch. This would give HG battles three groups: "Reserve", "Line" and "Escort".

Scott Martin

Scott, so I don't derail this thread too much further. In the modified HG combat sequence approach I just posted I take the "Hard" approach myself and allow Escorts that defensive fire to be hit (at n=+3) should the attacker wish.

Exactly on the "strike" vs. "cover" fighters.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:

I'm using the HGS software.

Thanks, now for a stupid question, where is that available?
The reason I ask is IMTU is also primarily TL12 worlds, the lead worlds have TL15 in one or two (max) areas and they guard this knowledge. So the majority of warships IMTU are TL12 with bits of TL13. Although I use a homebrew ship-design, it still has enough HG concepts to benfit from a comparison.

If interested, I'd like to devise a TL12 "counter" fleet based on whatever "intelligence info" and design philosophy you like. Sort of a virtual arms race. Then someone can pits the fleets together and to truly test them.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Ptah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:

I'm using the HGS software.

Thanks, now for a stupid question, where is that available?</font>[/QUOTE]Here.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
]I am not at all sure I would allow "spinal mounts" in turrets.

Of course, I have already complained that as a fraction of the mass and volume they represent within a vessel, while they might be mounted along the spine of the ship, that is all it is, they are certainly not the spine of the ship.

I wonder, has anyone ever considered 200 dTon Bays? 1000 dTon Bays? Or my favorite, laser bays and spinal mounts?

My house rule about spinal "turrets" is based on the same proportion as regular turrets: a CT/HG ship can have one turret per 100 dtons of ship, effectively making turrets 1% of the ship's tonnage. So I just applied that same percentage to spinal mounts and figured out how big the ship would have to be for a spinal mount to be of the same proportional size. Note that you still have to provide energy for all these extra weapons. Using HGS I add spinal "turrets" using the User Defined section. Andrew did that so well I can even account for the EPs, crew, and hardpoints needed for my "turrets."

I have created tables for larger bays, up to 500 dtons, including laser and sandcaster bays up to that size. I imagine most CT/HG gearheads have done something similar.

 

[robject]

Wow... HGS is great...

Hmm. I can't quite get the Nolikian right. What am I doing wrong?