CT Only: HG "fix" for the giant ship fans

[Amber Chancer]

My only concern is that PA are quite accurate so critical hits are going to be a lot more common.

I do like the rule change though, it just feels right.

One final suggestion (or two), taken from the pages of HG1.

Crew hits - crew factor must be reduced to 0 before the ship is mission killed (I think I prefer to keep the -1 to every roll per crew hit I suggested earlier)

Critical hit repairs - can be attempted if ship is in the reserve, roll 11+, DM▮+ crew factor...

Ok, and one final one, how about nuclear dampers can reduce radiation hits as if they are armour too

Mike - it's not there yet (see the combat report I am about to post) - and you're right, the PA accuracy means it's easy to get those criticals.

Hmmmmmm

 

[boomslang]

Meson guns are sort of dumb anyway, so just drop the Meson Gun and Meson Screen and call it a day.

I admit that this notion has always held a certain appeal to me...

It can really bring the whole "slugfest" element back into fleet actions.

 

[savage]

I would not want to drop Traveller technologies from a revised OTU.
Meson tech is fun. Also, it leads to more interesting things.

Is this a new spin on the Dreadnaught thread? Why?

 

[Amber Chancer]

Is this a new spin on the Dreadnaught thread? Why?

It's about taking some of the thoughts and issues that have arisen in that thread, and testing some ideas for addressing them, without overburdening the Dreadnought thread itself. I am also doing a separate thread for the combat reports of playtests of the proposals. I considered both to be sufficiently separate subjects to warrant a thread of their own.

 

[Amber Chancer]

It can really bring the whole "slugfest" element back into fleet actions.

And that, actually, is what I am trying to get away from :rofl:

Starships ... even relatively heavily armoured ones ... ought nevertheless to be essentially fragile creations. And from a gaming point of view, what actually is the attraction of a rule set which takes 30 turns to reach a conclusion rather than 6 or 7? Especially where the 30 turns don't actually require any difficult decisions or judgement calls, because they are just a matter of watching a grinding wheel slowly smoothing off the rough exterior of a spaceship studded with weapon systems.

 

[McPerth]

Meson guns are sort of dumb anyway, so just drop the Meson Gun and Meson Screen and call it a day.

Thile this can be an interesting though, see taht this will take away the main (IMHO) incertitude outcome of any HG large ships battle.

With the large numbers of missile batteries, their results are only playable with statistical results (after all, if you roll the 100+ rolls for a whole volley you'll probably get similar results and lose quite a lot of time), the main incertitude result is tht of your spinals, the only wepons in such small numbers as for making them worth rolling, and the more decisive of them are MG.

If you take them out of the equation, the statistical results are most of what's left.

Also, taking the mesons out of play, there's no compelling reason for your capital ships to be config 1, allowing you cheaper hulls (see that close structure hulls are also able to refuel and 50% cheaper), and so more ships to add to the feast. That may be good or bad, but it's just another change this will produce...

And if you add missiles ammo limits to it (somtheing strongly recomended by many, me among them), this would lead to most battles being inconclusive engagements (more Monitor vs Merrimack space battles), with ships being lightly damaged before runing out missiles and returning home to rearm/repair.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Thile this can be an interesting though, see taht this will take away the main (IMHO) incertitude outcome of any HG large ships battle.

With the large numbers of missile batteries, their results are only playable with statistical results (after all, if you roll the 100+ rolls for a whole volley you'll probably get similar results and lose quite a lot of time), the main incertitude result is tht of your spinals, the only wepons in such small numbers as for making them worth rolling, and the more decisive of them are MG.

If you take them out of the equation, the statistical results are most of what's left.

Also, taking the mesons out of play, there's no compelling reason for your capital ships to be config 1, allowing you cheaper hulls (see that close structure hulls are also able to refuel and 50% cheaper), and so more ships to add to the feast. That may be good or bad, but it's just another change this will produce...

And if you add missiles ammo limits to it (somtheing strongly recomended by many, me among them), this would lead to most battles being inconclusive engagements (more Monitor vs Merrimack space battles), with ships being lightly damaged before runing out missiles and returning home to rearm/repair.

I am entirely with you on all of this, McP, except for the fact that I think you will find that the ship the Monitor fought in Hampton Roads was actually called the CSS Virginia.

I do find the ability to make an "ironclad" spaceship which is completely impenetrable by anything less than a spinal weapon, meson gun or nuclear missile a little bit unbelievable, myself. So when I move down from Cruisers to smaller vessels, one of the "fixes" I will be investigating is removing the +6 damage DM for those non-spinals. The "fix" which I am adopting of only counting armour at half factor against spinal weapons gives a bit of "headroom" for making a change like this, which still leaves clear blue water between the effect of spinal and non-spinal weaponry. It will, however, mean that even Armour-F cannot give you absolute protection against non-spinal weaponry; and totally unarmoured ships are exceedingly vulnerable to absolutely everything.

But this is currently just speculation as to the sort of "fix" that may be possible to re-energise HG small ship combat.

 

[JimMarn]

I noticed the menion of 14th century armor and WW2.

Destroyers hit battleships and cruisers with torpedoes and knocked off bows or otherwise heavily damaged them. The harder hitting Long Lance torpedo the Imperial Japanese Navy used sank cruisers. I do remember someone on here saying Traveller torps aren't that hard hitting. Why not ? Carrying capacity of the starships ?

One thing I haven't seen is the mention of just how vulnerable the engine nozzles are. A swift fighter could disable a BB or cruiser manouvering by hitting them there. Kinda like the biplanes of the Royal Navy hitting the rudder of the Bismark. Is this type of hit/action taken into account in the rules ?

 

[McPerth]

I am entirely with you on all of this, McP, except for the fact that I think you will find that the ship the Monitor fought in Hampton Roads was actually called the CSS Virginia.

You're right. Merrimack was its former name, and I've found both names used to describe de battle.

I do find the ability to make an "ironclad" spaceship which is completely impenetrable by anything less than a spinal weapon, meson gun or nuclear missile a little bit unbelievable, myself. So when I move down from Cruisers to smaller vessels, one of the "fixes" I will be investigating is removing the +6 damage DM for those non-spinals. The "fix" which I am adopting of only counting armour at half factor against spinal weapons gives a bit of "headroom" for making a change like this, which still leaves clear blue water between the effect of spinal and non-spinal weaponry. It will, however, mean that even Armour-F cannot give you absolute protection against non-spinal weaponry; and totally unarmoured ships are exceedingly vulnerable to absolutely everything.

I've heard that suggestion before too, and while I agree in concept I'm afraid that those same missile batteries some people things too powerful(relative to other weaponry) will increase in lethality, if the +6 for having factor under A does not offset its -6 for being nukes. Missiles are then too powerful, being the only weapons with negative DMs in the table.

Even a ship with armor 15 would then be damaged most of the time by nuclear missiles, as the surface explosion table would "only" have a +9 modifier so damage is assured, while in the radiation table they will also be damaging.

This aside, that change would also need to specify if the battery is a bay or several turrets (e.g. a 9 factor FG batery could be 10 double turrets or a 50 dton bay).

 

[Vladika]

You're right. Merrimack was its former name, and I've found both names used to describe de battle.



I've heard that suggestion before too, and while I agree in concept I'm afraid that those same missile batteries some people things too powerful(relative to other weaponry) will increase in lethality, if the +6 for having factor under A does not offset its -6 for being nukes. Missiles are then too powerful, being the only weapons with negative DMs in the table.

Even a ship with armor 15 would then be damaged most of the time by nuclear missiles, as the surface explosion table would "only" have a +9 modifier so damage is assured, while in the radiation table they will also be damaging.

This aside, that change would also need to specify if the battery is a bay or several turrets (e.g. a 9 factor FG batery could be 10 double turrets or a 50 dton bay).

I have to agree with McPerth here. Missiles already dominate the HG2 battles. Also, wasn't the point in all of this to see about making BBs more survivable not less?

 

[Amber Chancer]

This is all true - but there are other ways of dealing with that. (Although it involves yet more tinkering).

For instance, rather than getting a -6 to counteract the +6 which has been discarded, you could e.g. give a nuke that penetrates the Damper as many roll son the damage tables as its USP weapon factor - thus turning them into "mini-spinals".

And my objective is to rebalance the combat in all its deficiencies - not JUST make dreadnoughts more survivable than cruisers.

 

[McPerth]

This is all true - but there are other ways of dealing with that. (Although it involves yet more tinkering).

For instance, rather than getting a -6 to counteract the +6 which has been discarded, you could e.g. give a nuke that penetrates the Damper as many roll son the damage tables as its USP weapon factor - thus turning them into "mini-spinals".

And my objective is to rebalance the combat in all its deficiencies - not JUST make dreadnoughts more survivable than cruisers.

In fact those "mini-spinals" would be as powerful as an H rated PA spinal, as most those misiles would be 9 factor batteries (so rolling 9 times on the Surface explosión and on the radiaton tables, as an H rated PA spinal does), while baing quite cheaper, using quite less power and being quite more common (as a ship might bear quite a lot of them).

Try that in your combat report, if you dare :devil:...

 

[Amber Chancer]

In fact those "mini-spinals" would be as powerful as an H rated PA spinal

Actually, they wouldn't ... because with my fixes, the "mini-spinals" would still get the FULL armour factor of the target ship added as a DM to their damage rolls, whereas the PA spinals would only get HALF the armour added.

It still might not result in a balanced outcome, though ... as is so often the case when you set out to rebalance one feature, you can so easily end up unbalancing another feature.

It's usually a case of "suck-it-and-see"; but I feel my tests are making some progress.

 

[McPerth]

Actually, they wouldn't ... because with my fixes, the "mini-spinals" would still get the FULL armour factor of the target ship added as a DM to their damage rolls, whereas the PA spinals would only get HALF the armour added.

It still might not result in a balanced outcome, though ... as is so often the case when you set out to rebalance one feature, you can so easily end up unbalancing another feature.

It's usually a case of "suck-it-and-see"; but I feel my tests are making some progress.

And I hope my comments help you on this "suck-it-and-see", not to discourage you from suggesting. As you say, most those balance tries give us unwanted side effects unforeseen by the one that suggests them.

 

[Amber Chancer]

And I hope my comments help you on this "suck-it-and-see", not to discourage you from suggesting. As you say, most those balance tries give us unwanted side effects unforeseen by the one that suggests them.

They do indeed.

Everyone's input is most welcome.

 

[Piper]

Have you considered linking the armour values to the hull size; i.e. limiting the armor value that can go on a hull of a given displacement, reserving the highest levels for the largest hull sizes?

 

[McPerth]

Have you considered linking the armour values to the hull size; i.e. limiting the armor value that can go on a hull of a given displacement, reserving the highest levels for the largest hull sizes?

Interesting idea, or just making it to need less tonnage as the ship is larger (or more of it as it goes smaller)...

I always hated armor 15 fighters against which you had to use your spinals or at least your nukes to damage...

 

[Amber Chancer]

Have you considered linking the armour values to the hull size; i.e. limiting the armor value that can go on a hull of a given displacement, reserving the highest levels for the largest hull sizes?

That IS an interesting idea ... especially if used in conjunction with a rule mod I have been pondering, which would utterly revolutionise ship design.

The mod I have been pondering is "structural integrity in Jump space" - and would require ANY ship which travels through Jump space (including carried craft) to devote some of its interior space to structural features required to preserve its structural integrity during a jump. There is no cost for this ... it is inherent in the cost of the hull ... but the space devoted to SIJ cannot be used for anything else. And the amount of space required to be devoted to SIJ is A % OF THE TOTAL EQUAL TO THE HULL SIZE USP DIGIT.

Thus a 100 ton ship needs to set aside 1% of its hull for SIJ ... but a 1,000 ton ship needs to set aside 10% ... and a 50,000 ton ship needs to set aside 23%.

I consider these requirements to be absolute and not variable by tech level or jump distance. They simply result in a law of diminishing returns for ship size, and limit the trend towards monster ships (I know some people like monster ships ... I don't).

It's all about forcing compromises into the ship design process, because you can never "have it all" ...

 

[McPerth]

That IS an interesting idea ... especially if used in conjunction with a rule mod I have been pondering, which would utterly revolutionise ship design.

The mod I have been pondering is "structural integrity in Jump space" - and would require ANY ship which travels through Jump space (including carried craft) to devote some of its interior space to structural features required to preserve its structural integrity during a jump. There is no cost for this ... it is inherent in the cost of the hull ... but the space devoted to SIJ cannot be used for anything else. And the amount of space required to be devoted to SIJ is A % OF THE TOTAL EQUAL TO THE HULL SIZE USP DIGIT.

Thus a 100 ton ship needs to set aside 1% of its hull for SIJ ... but a 1,000 ton ship needs to set aside 10% ... and a 50,000 ton ship needs to set aside 23%.

I consider these requirements to be absolute and not variable by tech level or jump distance. They simply result in a law of diminishing returns for ship size, and limit the trend towards monster ships (I know some people like monster ships ... I don't).

It's all about forcing compromises into the ship design process, because you can never "have it all" ...

I'm afraid you're going in the opposite direction as most people, making harder to armor a large ship than a small one. This will stil lallow for the heavily armored fighters, but will not allow any jump capable Battleships.

This will also give even more advantage to BRs, making setting even more absurd as described, with its large BBs.

 

[robject]

This will also give even more advantage to BRs, making setting even more absurd as described, with its large BBs.

Since that's Amber's preference, it's not a bug, it's a feature