[HG] Designing a TL12 fleet

[far-trader]

Well I think the example could have been clearer by it simply showing the math, i.e. that the hull "allocated" for the 20 100ton bays is not the 2000tons actually used for the bays but the 20,000tons required to what? support? the bays.

Sure it's my own fault years ago for not looking closer at the example and simply thinking the line "not otherwise allocated" meant actually being taken up by. It was easy to read it that way since that is exactly how the same "not otherwise allocated" is applied to the major weapon, the tonnage of the major weapon is used and not some minimum required tonnage per weapon. It is inconsistant usage of language and its application, like this, that creates these loopholes just waiting for someone to exploit. And no I don't intentionally do it and did eventually discover my error in part from finally trying to figure out the example.

Also in the same vein there is precedence for allowing sub 1000ton hulls to have a "per 1000tons" weapon. The same rule is found in the hardpoint calculation of one hardpoint turret "per 100tons" but allowing sub 100ton hulls to have the equivilent of a full hardpoint turret. There are no penalties associated with such turrets and by the application of the same spirit of the rules and the letter of the language a sub 1000ton hull should be able to mount a full bay weapon without penalty. I'm sure you disagree and will think it a low dirty trick

 

[mike wightman]

If it's of any consolation Dan, I made the very same hardpoints mistake for years.

Is thiss the time to mention the factor 0 armour controvercy?

 

[far-trader]

It does help to know I'm not alone

No I don't think this is the time to... oh, but you have

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Also in the same vein there is precedence for allowing sub 1000ton hulls to have a "per 1000tons" weapon. The same rule is found in the hardpoint calculation of one hardpoint turret "per 100tons" but allowing sub 100ton hulls to have the equivilent of a full hardpoint turret.

Dan,

Sorry, but no cigar there either.

The rules make it plainly clear that sub-100dTon hulls; i.e. small craft, are different. They even have their own special design section where their special tonnage requirments for weapons are all laid out. Arguing that a special condition somehow can applied back into the general rules is disengenuous.

There are no penalties associated with such turrets and by the application of the same spirit of the rules and the letter of the language a sub 1000ton hull should be able to mount a full bay weapon without penalty. I'm sure you disagree and will think it a low dirty trick

You're right, I do disagree and whether it is a trick or not depends on the intention of the 'tricker'.

If they built a sub-1000dTon bay-armed ship becuase they misunderstood the rules, it was a mistake.

If they build sub-1000dTon bay-armed ship and then tried to justify that design by applying a rule from the special sub-100dTon design section back into the general 100+dTon design section in the face of pre-existing examples, it was intentional.

Intention makes it a different kettle of fish altogether. The fact that they felt the need to produce an alilbi speaks volumes.


Have fun,
Bill

P.S. I want to point out that I have no trouble with someone saying; 'IMTU, I allow sub-1000dTon weapon bays because they're lots of fun to play around with'. I've done the same many times and with many other things than weapon bays.

However, I do have a problems with someone saying; In the OTU, sub-1000dTons bays are allowed because I choose to read this rule differently by using another definition for that word while ignoring the example given of the rule in question and applying another rule from the special sub-100dTon design section. That is something else entirely.

 

[fredofmars]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
<snip>
Any other interpretation involves choosing to ignore the example given to illustrate the rule. That's not just some minor quibbling over wording, that an example of wilfull ignorance with an ulterior goal in mind. <snip>

Traveller (and many games, both RPG and other) has long had those who choose to play using "house rules" and who sometimes gleefully label themselves "heretics". This is not necessarily a bad thing as long as everyone playing together recognizes what is the official rule and what is a "house rule". I have several designs on my Web site that are heretical in this sense. I think the official rule has been established in this thread pretty clearly, but the "house rules" about sub-1000t bays can be fun to play around with too.

I took a while to write this so didn't see your immediately previous reply, Bill.

 

[mike wightman]

Again I mention armour factor 0

Until Chris Thrash mentioned it a while ago I never paid the tonnage cost or MCr for armour factor 0, and yet it is there, in black and white, in the rules.

Does High Guard Shipyard take it into account?

Does anyone design unarmoured ships using it?

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Does High Guard Shipyard take it into account?

Sigg,

I think Andrew Moffatt-Vallance made it part of HGS. ISTR it being pointed out to him during all the various beta releases at 'ct-starship' Yahoo group.

Does anyone design unarmoured ships using it?

Yes, of course. You don't think hulls are free do you?


Have fun,
Bill

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Scott,

You are overlooking something, [...]

I am forced to agree with Bill's interpretation of weapons allocation.

It is not possible to mount a bay in a vessel with a hull smaller than 1000 dTons under the strict rules.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Except there are canon examples of ships that bend this rule and do mount a bay weapon in less than 1,000tons

Cite?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
I'll have to disagree with you on your bay interpretation though: if they meant that you weren't allowed to put a bay weapon in a sub-1,000 Ton vessel, then an example of a sub-1,000T vessel should have been in order.

That is not a correct assumption.

Just because you've never seen pigs flying doesn't mean that this necessitates the possibility that there are some.

It's true that there might be some, somewhere, but we don't go out of our way to assume they exist.

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
but the fact that they *didn't* provide this example means that there is a grey area.

I think the examples provided are crystal clear, and that they forbid bays on vessels with hulls of less than 1000 dTons.

They do so by clearly stating how the spinal mounts, bays, and turrets are allocated.

Further examples were unnecessary because the existing examples covered the necessary cases.

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
Obviously I'm taking the point of view that this grey area is deliberate.

I have quite of few of my own house rules. I fully approve of the existence of house rules.

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
It is, however fun to debate those "old" rules,

Why, yes, it is.

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
My interpretation of all of the examples in HG amount to the following:

1) Take the hull displacement, subtract the spinal mount volume. Max bays is this volume divided by 1,000.

999 dTons / 1000 = .999

.999 < 1 = No Bays.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Unknown:
"One hardpoint is allowed per 100 tons of hull not otherwise allocated to weapons. For example, a 50,000-ton ships carrying a 5,000-ton type A meson gun and twenty 100-tons bays may designate 250 hardpoints for turrets.

Check the math. 50,000tons - 5,000tons - 2,000tons = 43,000tons / 100 = 430 hardpoints NOT the 250 hardpoints the example goes to pains to show.
</font>[/QUOTE]<snip of my own big example countering the above />

Originally posted by far-trader:
However IF we somehow puzzle out that what is meant by "hull not otherwise allocated to weapons" to mean that each Bay Weapon reduces the available hull total by the limit of 1 Bay Weapon per 1,000tons of hull (rather than the way I read it as the actual tonnage used by the bays) we do get the 250 hardpoints in the example:

50,000tons - 5,000tons - 20,000tons = 25,000tons / 100 = 250 hardpoints

See what I mean

<sigh />

Here I run off and create a giant example, and in the next section you say exactly what my example said.

Your second section is the correct one.

I have always known this to be true.

The rules in HG2 regarding weapons allocation are discussing dTons of allocation, not dTons of weapons.

Spinal mounts allocate at their volume. (SMA = Weapon dTons.)

Bays allocate at 1000 dTons each. (BA = Bays * 1,000.)

Turrets allocate at 100 dTons each. (TA = Turrets * 100.)

The combined total of the above allocation tonnage may not exceed the dTons of the hull.

SMA + BA + TA <= Hull dTons.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The US carriers in the game all had the same carrying capacity rating; so many fighters, so many bombers, etc. Instead of launching a strike from Enterprise out 7 boxes, attacking, and returning 7 boxes, you could fly the Enterprise strike out 4 boxes, attack, and return 10 boxes to Yorktown. The Yorktown air units would then fly out 10, attack, and return 4 to Enterprise.

It was a neat trick according to the 'genius' who sprung it. It wasn't explicitly forbidden in the rules either. The fact that it flouted the spirit of the rules was of naturally of no consequence to him.

I agree with most of what you said before this example.

It took a few minutes to think of how this would grant an advantage.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The organizers of the event and the convention; including members of the AH staff, felt differently. The 'genius' was given a choice; either replay the game without his 'trick' or the event would be cancelled.

However, this is a spectacular over-reaction. It amounts to re-writing the rules by the organizers in the middle of a tournament when someone was smart enough to figure out an exploit.

That's not rules-lawyering, that's being a smart tactician.

Especially since I can see that, in a real military situation, it might have actually been done if an Admiral had been forced into it.

"Admiral! Yorktown's at 250 miles*, her planes can't make round trips to support us against the incoming attack."

"Captain, radio Yorktown that her planes will land aboard Enterprise and ours will take a long leg back and land aboard her. Our planes will strike together!"

I'm sorry, but I feel very strongly that the tournament organizers did an ethically shady thing, and a morally babyish thing, especially threatening one of their participants with shutting down the whole shebang. "Oh, we don't like that. *WAHHH!* Take it back or we'll shut down the whole tournament and it'll be your fault. *WAHHH!*"

He should have gotten an accomodation for original thinking, and if they didn't like it, they should have done eratta in an appropriate manner, later. (Although, again, from the sound of it, I don't think it needed to be.)

(*Or whatever range.)

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Again I mention armour factor 0

Until Chris Thrash mentioned it a while ago I never paid the tonnage cost or MCr for armour factor 0, and yet it is there, in black and white, in the rules.

Does High Guard Shipyard take it into account?

Does anyone design unarmoured ships using it?

What? Could you explain?

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
I agree with most of what you said before this example.

RoS,

Let me expand on the story.

Avalon Hill's Midway was supposed to be an accurate; within the confines of a wargame, model of the battle. Keeping that in mind, the 'carrier hopping' tactic sprung by the munchkin was not part of the game.

First, it was never done during WW2. No one ever flew off a strike at a target beyond 'bingo' range. The odds were just too long. It was hard enough to find your own carrier let alone another. So, using or allowing this trick tactic in a game purporting to model actual carrier warfare is rather odd.

Second, Avalon Hill had had the 'trick' pointed out to them a few years after the game was released in the 70s before in the letters section of their magazine The General. At that time, in their magazine, Avalon Hill acknowledged the 'trick' was within the letter of the rules but obviously ignored the spirit of the rules. They ruled the 'trick' out of bounds.

Note the time, the 70s. No internet, not chat rooms, no on demand printing, no constnatly updated ruels, and no quick way to pass along errata except by their magazine. Even so, I and many others knew the 'trick' was 'verboten' years before we even attended the con.

Third, the convention was in the 80s. Again, pre-internet. The participants in the event brought their own copies of the game and were paired off randomly. By entering the eveny, the 'genius' and everyone else agreed to play game per the latest errata. His opponent knew about the 'trick', knew about the ruling from the 70s, and didn't use it. Whether the 'genius' knew about the ruling is debatable. He did use the trick however.

Now for the kicker; Midway is played in a double-blind method. Neither side sees the opponent's board and must trust the other to truthfully report the result of announced surface and air searchs. (Midway is like Battleship in this regarding.) Because of this, the 'genius' opponent didn't know he'd been a victim of the 'trick' until after the game was completed and both side's logs were examined.

The 'genius' was actually given the benefit of the doubt. I believe he knew the 'trick' was out of bounds and pulled it anyway thinking the double-blind nature of the game would let him get away with it. Instead, the organizers chose to believe he didn't know the 'trick' was wrong and allowed him the chance to play again. If he didn't want to play again, none of the other gamers were willing to play against him in the next round because they didn't trust him.

It's a tough call. The Midawy rules never had a version 2 that specifically outlawed the 'trick'; printing margins for AH were razor thin even though they were owned by a printing company. The only 'errata' available was in a hobby magazine nearly a decade old.

OTOH, the wargaming community has always been small, tiny even. I'd learned about the 'trick' and the errata not because I had a subscription, but because a fellow gamer had told me and loaned me his magazine copy to read during a gaming night. During the event, only one person out of more than twenty claimed not to know about the 'errata' and that person was the 'genius' who used the 'trick'.

Like I said, it was a tough call and I think the event planners called it right.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
What? Could you explain?

RoS,

There's an 'armor' cost even when you have an armor factor of 0.

No matter the tech level, 'armor' cost is MCr (0.3 + 0.1a) per ton where a = armor level.

This really is a broken rule. Any unarmored hull from 10dTons to 1,000,000dTons costs 300KCr.

I still add it though.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

Let me expand on the story.

Avalon Hill's Midway was supposed to be an accurate; within the confines of a wargame, model of the battle. Keeping that in mind, the 'carrier hopping' tactic sprung by the munchkin was not part of the game.

A simulation like that is supposed to allow events to play out in ways different than the original, within the same general parameters.

Because I view the "munchkin's" tactic as possible in the RW, I don't see much wrong with it.

What's more, as the quote below shows, it actually happened in WWII.

If the AH game Midway was supposed to be an exact replica of the original . . . why play it?

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
First, it was never done during WW2. No one ever flew off a strike at a target beyond 'bingo' range.

I am very sorry sir. But that is not true.

In the battle of the Phillipine Sea, the US fleet launched its entire air wing, in the afternoon, at a retreating target fleet that was at maximum range when the planes were launching, and that target fleet continued to retreat.

This is the famous occurrence where the US Admiral, in the middle of the night, ordered the fleet's lights (floods, spots, everything) turned on so those planes would be able to spot where to return to.

Not all planes made it back due to fuel problems.

Cdr. William A. Dean and VF-2 "Rippers"

19/20 June 1944 - First Battle of the Philippine Sea/"Marianas Turkey Shoot"

By dawn of the 20th, they knew they had downed a huge fraction of the enemy's naval aircraft, but so far they hadn't found his carriers. About 1600, a contact was made. The Japanese were 200 miles to the west, a long rounf-trip flight, especially in the late afternoon. Admiral Mitscher ordered the strike; for maximum punch even the Hellcats carried 500-pound bombs.

In Aces at War, Vol. 4, Connie Hargreaves described his part in the mission.

The pilots of Fighting Two flew out to the sighting area, but no Japanese carriers. The CAG ordered them to press on, beyond the safe turn-around point. Just as the sun was setting the spotted the Jap fleet. There was no aerial opposition, just heavy AA. Bill Dean took his division in first, then Hargreaves' division commenced their dives. After release, they tried to form up, but the darkness was absolute: no moon, no city lights reflecting off the clouds, just their instruments and the running lights of other U.S. planes. The pilots joined up with any 'friendly' fighter. As they flew back to the east, first the dive-bombers, then the torpedo bombers began to ditch as they ran out of fuel.

Hargreaves began to question his navigation, but finally spotted the wakes of the American fleet below. Procedure called for the landings to be made in darkness, with only the dim blue deck lights and the LSO's paddles to guide the planes in. But not many pilots had actually made night carrier landings, and when a number of bombers crashed on landing, Mitscher gave his famous order to "Turn on the lights." With a little more gas than some of the others, Hargreaves circled a little longer. When he got the 'Cut', he landed uneventfully, but was almost killed as the next plane landed poorly, missed Hargreaves plane by inches and knocked another onto a quad AA gun.

It was a somber night in Hornet's ready room, as only six VF-2 pilots gathered there; but many others had landed on other carriers. Others were fished out of the water. It turned out that all of Hargreaves' gang were safe that night, but they lost five aircraft.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
The odds were just too long. It was hard enough to find your own carrier let alone another. So, using or allowing this trick tactic in a game purporting to model actual carrier warfare is rather odd.

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
Second, Avalon Hill had had the 'trick' pointed out to them a few years after the game was released in the 70s before in the letters section of their magazine The General. At that time, in their magazine, Avalon Hill acknowledged the 'trick' was within the letter of the rules but obviously ignored the spirit of the rules. They ruled the 'trick' out of bounds.

Oh, I didn't realize that it was already ruled invalid.

La, la, la! I retract my previous statements. (All except that I think it was possible in the RW, and that it did, in fact, actually happen).

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
What? Could you explain?

RoS,

There's an 'armor' cost even when you have an armor factor of 0.

No matter the tech level, 'armor' cost is MCr (0.3 + 0.1a) per ton where a = armor level.

This really is a broken rule. Any unarmored hull from 10dTons to 1,000,000dTons costs 300KCr.

I still add it though.


Have fun,
Bill </font>[/QUOTE]I say, most respectfuly, balderdash!

I have re-read the armor rules just now, and they indicate, in no uncertain terms, precisely the opposite.

Dispersed structure hulls can't even take armor. You skip the whole armor section without even glancing at it when taking these hulls.

There is no indication, whatsoever, in any small degree, of any wording, that the forumla shall be executed with a 0 for the factor if armor is not selected.

HG2 p.28/29 (Italics mine.)
-- Hulls may be armored . . .

-- Such armor is not possible on ships with dispersed structure . . .

-- The armor factor is the type of armor used; if no armor is selected, the armor factor in the USP is zero.

-- When armor is used, the entire hull is armored.

-- Dispersed structures cannot be armored, and have a hull armor factor of 0.

All of these rules quite clearly illustrate that there is a case where there is no armor aboard. If there is no armor aboard, then obviously the formula goes unused.

None of them indicate that the formula should be used for the USP 0 case. There is not a hint of it (and not among the text I omitted, either). Not one example, nothing, and all the other statements indicating otherwise.

The most telling statement is: "When armor is used, the entire hull is armored.".

The reverse is obviously implied. "When armor is not used, the entire hull is unarmored."

If this was issued as eratta somewhere, I'd be happy to hear of it.

 

[Whipsnade]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
In the battle of the Phillipine Sea, the US fleet launched its entire air wing, in the afternoon, at a retreating target fleet that was at maximum range when the planes were launching, and that target fleet continued to retreat.

RoS,

I'm well aware of the circumstance surrounding the last USN strike during the Phillipine Sea battle. (Other posters may remember it as the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot)

Spruance did launch his air wing towards a distant target and he did have trouble recovering his aircraft afterwards (In fact he ordered the CVs to illuminate themselves in order to increase the aircrews' chances of finding their way home, this in spite of reports of IJN submarines!)

What Spruance didn't plan was the sort of 'carrier swapping' the AH Midway trick modeled. Enterprise didn't fly off a strike that was then supposed to land on 'i]Lexington[/i] afterwards. The 'Land Where You Can' order at Phillipine Sea was was not issued before the air strike left, it occurred after the operations staff realized just how far the IJN had withdrawn.

The 'carrier swapping' in this case was not planned, instead it was a calculated risk. It also did not encompass entire air wings, not every Enterprise landed on Lexington for example. Planes landed helter-skelter where ever they could and not according to plan.

Read Morrison. Reorganizing the various wings took some time.

Allow me this example: during WW1 HMS Dreadnought rammed and sank a German u-boat; the only enemy vessel it ever sank, however that doesn't mean that Dreadnought was an ASW asset.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bill Cameron:

The 'carrier swapping' in this case was not planned, instead it was a calculated risk. It also did not encompass entire air wings, not every Enterprise landed on Lexington for example. Planes landed helter-skelter where ever they could and not according to plan.

Yes, I'll admit it was unplanned.

But if they'd thought of it ahead of time, and had full procedures in place, and practiced it, it would have been less of a problem.

Thus my "smart tactician" comment.

Lady Harrington never let a small thing like "Nobody has ever done it before" get in her way. And after all, we're in this for our imagination.

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

However your earlier comment about the eratta, and the double-blind set up of the Midway game, does shed a pretty bad light upon the individual who committed it.

 

[far-trader]

The armor issue is a little more than that Bill and RoS. Note I always did it the way you do RoS, ignore the whole calculation if no armor is used, but when Sigg pointed it out I saw the problem. The key is the part of the rule that says (my emphasis in bold): "The armor table indicates formulae for the computation of armor tonnage and cost, based on the armor factor selected."

Go ahead and select armor factor zero and plug it into the formulae. Let's use the same 100ton ship as the example.

At TL9 on a 100ton ship with an armor factor of 0, this formula indicates that the ship must allocate 4% (4 + 4 x 0), or 4tons. Cost is MCr.3 + .1a per ton; the cost per ton is MCr.3 (.3 + .1 x 0), or MCr1.2 (4 tons times MCr.3) total for the ship.

Now obviously this is not the intent since the type S with armor 0 does not lose 4tons or add MCr1.2 to the cost. It does however show a badly worded rule and/or formulae that can cause confusion. The same kind of confusion that I had with the hardpoints issue. And both could have been so easily prevented.