[HG revamp] What would you prefer?

[Tobias]

Okay, so I am in the process of revamping the HG combat and (to a lesser extent) design system.

I am trying to build on HG2's design system, so that ideally you'll be able to convert a HGS design with minimal hassle, but there are going to be a few changes; axing some things I never liked, adding some other things I feel are missing and changing some more things that don't make sense to me.

With that vague and pointless introduction out of the way: I am currently pondering which the default(!) option in the area of movement should be:

- An abstract battle line system such as in HG2?

- A Mayday-type vector movement system, but based on a square grid?

Which would be your preference? If the former is the default option, I will also leave armor as a single value (as in HG2), while in the latter case, I will introduce armor facings as an additional tactical element (and as a more or less elegant way of solving one of my problems with the existing design system.)

Note that by "default" option I mean that the system will probably include both abstract and detailed movement rules - but one be the standard assumption, the rest of the system being designed with it in mind.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

My Thougts

I always considered the tri axis nature of movement of ships in space.
The system should allow for various sections of the ships hull to be exposed to attackers so that the captain must choose the most dangerous opponent to present his most heavily armored facet to and leave the rest of his ship exposed to other enemy craft.

 

[savage]

Previous systems have varied Battle Riders, Power Projection, etc.

Wouldn't it be best to start with pros and cons of each previous system attempt.

I prefer vector, but it needs to be scalable.

 

[mike wightman]

I use an adaptation of the Starter Edition range band movement system.

Squadrons can close range, maintain range, break off, attempt "flanking" manoeuvres.

Escorts move with the ship they are escorting and may use their weapons to defend their designated vessel.

 

[Vladika]

Here is a thought. T5 allows multiple drives "ganged". Why not Meson Screens?

Mesons are after all the "big gun" killing weapons. Allow multiples to be in use at the same time, paying the needed EP cost. A BB now has two, or more Meson Screens to protect it.

Minimal rule change and coincides with T5 adaptions.

 

[mike wightman]

Make the meson screen act as armour too and you may be on to a winner here

It reduces number of extra hits and provides a DM on the damage table (along with needing to be penetrated in the first place).

I'd put a cap on it equal to TL though - otherwise you could end up pushing too many results off the damage table.

 

[Vladika]

Make the meson screen act as armour too and you may be on to a winner here

I can see making the MS act as armor, but, with the provision it never exceeds the actual armor of the target ship. Hard to justify an otherwise armor 4 ship being nearly meson proof.

It reduces number of extra hits and provides a DM on the damage table (along with needing to be penetrated in the first place).

I can see reducing the extra hits. Not sure about the results of moving damage up the table to far. Before long PAs might be the preferable weapon. Maybe half the factor? That or only allow the DM for a single (largest functioning) screen?

I'd put a cap on it equal to TL though - otherwise you could end up pushing too many results off the damage table.

Cap would be essential.

 

[Carlobrand]

I can see making the MS act as armor, but, with the provision it never exceeds the actual armor of the target ship. Hard to justify an otherwise armor 4 ship being nearly meson proof. ...

Why? Apples and oranges. How does one justify limiting the meson screen's effectiveness by tying it to something that a meson ghosts straight through? Not to mention, why on Earth would someone make a ship meson-proof and then let it get eaten up by lasers and missiles?

As for movement, I like the abstract movement - keep it simple. Maybe abandon the reserve rule: it has an interesting effect but it's hard to justify. Maybe consider allowing a fleet to have a vanguard that fights at short range while the remainder fights at long range, instead of random-rolling to see who gets to decide the range.

As for other ideas:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=32176

 

[Vladika]

Why? Apples and oranges. How does one justify limiting the meson screen's effectiveness by tying it to something that a meson ghosts straight through? Not to mention, why on Earth would someone make a ship meson-proof and then let it get eaten up by lasers and missiles?

As for movement, I like the abstract movement - keep it simple. Maybe abandon the reserve rule: it has an interesting effect but it's hard to justify. Maybe consider allowing a fleet to have a vanguard that fights at short range while the remainder fights at long range, instead of random-rolling to see who gets to decide the range.

As for other ideas:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=32176

The "why" is that I'm assuming that the meson shield acting as armor for mesons implies that it was partly effective but a meson "went off" within the ship, but at a lesser effect. I can't see a no armor ship surviving the blast occurring within. At this point I'm seeing the resulting meson explosion as any other explosion. Thus armor reduces accordingly.

I may very well be missing something.

 

[Carlobrand]

The "why" is that I'm assuming that the meson shield acting as armor for mesons implies that it was partly effective but a meson "went off" within the ship, but at a lesser effect. I can't see a no armor ship surviving the blast occurring within. At this point I'm seeing the resulting meson explosion as any other explosion. Thus armor reduces accordingly.

I may very well be missing something.

Well, there's the armor-outside/blast-occurs-inside bit, where the armor's about as useful as the armor of a tank that's had a grenade tossed in through the hatch. And then there's the way Striker portrays a meson event: it's a radius defined by the power of the meson gun, in which basically everything inside the perimeter - including armored vehicles - is destroyed with no rolls or nuthin', and nothing outside of the perimeter is damaged. It's not a radiating explosion; it's simply a zone of destruction. Under that model, the volume within a meson blast's detonation is simply destroyed, and walls, floors and ceilings are irrelevant to the effect.

There may be a different model of it in one of the other game systems, but my collection doesn't extend that far.

 

[Vladika]

Well, there's the armor-outside/blast-occurs-inside bit, where the armor's about as useful as the armor of a tank that's had a grenade tossed in through the hatch. And then there's the way Striker portrays a meson event: it's a radius defined by the power of the meson gun, in which basically everything inside the perimeter - including armored vehicles - is destroyed with no rolls or nuthin', and nothing outside of the perimeter is damaged. It's not a radiating explosion; it's simply a zone of destruction. Under that model, the volume within a meson blast's detonation is simply destroyed, and walls, floors and ceilings are irrelevant to the effect.

There may be a different model of it in one of the other game systems, but my collection doesn't extend that far.

As much as I hate to admit it, from the rules, you are obviously correct.

For that to happen, matter would just have to cease to exist, otherwise we would have "vaporization" resulting in... vapor. That vapor would tend to expand in a huge volume at an astounding rate. Since the rules don't provide for that, I guess we wear our suspenders and go with it. (Let's leave heat out of it for the moment! E=mc^2 and all that...)

Given that scenario, we now have a very large volume in sudden vacuum. Some internal structure will be needed to prevent bulkhead and deck collapse at this point. Whatever the internal atmospheric pressure is, assuming the ship isn't in a combat vacuum mode, the additive psi over those massive areas are going to be seriously destructive due to pressure acting at plate centroids.

Again, I see armor as one potential solution. (I believe that ships armor includes internal structural supports as well as membranes.)

I welcome, and look forward to, seeing others opinions and solutions.

 

[mike wightman]

The various rules state that meson screens cause the premature decay of some incoming mesons - some sort of modification to nuclear damper theory that affects the magic mesons perhaps?

I think the Striker rule is just an oversimplification to stop you having to worry about the actual effect, much like tactical nukes, Repeated reading of Striker still makes me think that there is an explosion within the meson area of effect.

 

[flykiller]

I always considered the tri axis nature of movement of ships in space. The system should allow for various sections of the ships hull to be exposed to attackers

I would prefer this consideration of aspect as well, along with specified weapons effects (this becomes very complicated according to how much "physics" is incorporated), penetration (this requires highly detailed deckplans), relative vectors, sensors and sensor ranges with double-blind considerations, etc.

I considered this at length some years ago and concluded that the only way to implement such rules would be with multiple players on a LAN using exceedingly detailed rules. IOW can't happen. not only would this be outside the capabilities of a hobby, even the military having built such systems for real-world considerations seldom uses them.

to operate it manually using tabletop systems would be even more expensive. sometimes I've fantasized about winning the lottery and inviting ten dedicated hobbyists to design a game system to be used by several hundred invited hobbyists occupying a college gym somewhere for an entire week playing a single battle, then spending another week analyzing what happened ....

I don't like hg2 at all, but for a tabletop game it's probably the only possible solution.

 

[Tobias]

I see I should have explained what I'm doing in some more detail. I'll do so in another thread.

 

[Vladika]

I see I should have explained what I'm doing in some more detail. I'll do so in another thread.

Sorry to derail what you were trying to accomplish. When I first read:

Okay, so I am in the process of revamping the HG combat and (to a lesser extent) design system.

I am trying to build on HG2's design system, so that ideally you'll be able to convert a HGS design with minimal hassle, but there are going to be a few changes; axing some things I never liked, adding some other things I feel are missing and changing some more things that don't make sense to me.

I got carried away. I love CT and HG(1&2) and jumped at the chance to put an oar in the water.

 

[Carlobrand]

Yeah, me too. I wonder why he just doesn't ask us to refocus this thread?

I was looking through my old copy of High Guard-1, in rather good condition for its age since it became obsolete within weeks of the day I purchased it (sigh). Nothing interesting for movement, it's basically the same. One interesting bit regarding damage results:

In the original High Guard-1, the Fuel Tanks Shattered result was a rare fluke result, occurred when you rolled a "Miscellaneous Effect." The "Miscellaneous Effect" result in turn was only available on the Interior Damage table, which in turn was only available to meson weapons. At best, the odds of a Fuel Tanks Shattered result on any one hit was about 1 in 36, usually a bit lower, and even the spinals only got one roll at the damage table when they got a hit, so it was a rather rare event. Spinal weapons were impressive for their ability to punch through defenses, but they weren't very impressive on the damage table.

Oh, the other thing was the Fuel Tanks Shattered result wasn't as crippling: the ship lost "nearly all" of its fuel and could no longer jump or maneuver, but it could continue using energy weapons, presumably using whatever fuel was left.

(That system had some odd features. A Needle configuration ship, and only a Needle configuration ship, was subject to critical hits from lasers and HE missiles, for example.)

 

[Tobias]

I got carried away. I love CT and HG(1&2) and jumped at the chance to put an oar in the water.

That's cool. Ideas are good in any case. It's my fault for not making clearer that I mainly wanted answers to the specific question in this particular case. I should have made it a poll.