High Guard 1.5 (<1979 edition)

[mike wightman]

Rob, in a previous post I offered the concept of strt with outcomes and work backwards.

As I understand this thread we are picking apart the 'good ideas' from HG79 and attempting to get something that may work for T5.

So I have now re-read all of the ship related stuff in AotI and the ship combat in Marc's short story Names.

T5 already has a tool that we can borrow - size, and the note that size can be decimalized.

small craft are S6.0->6.9
ACS are S7.0->7.9 (100 to 2500tons) main, bay, turret
BCS are S8.0->8.9 (2500 to 100000tons) spinal, main, bay. turret
FCS or Capitals are S9.0->9,9 (100000tons to 1000000tons or lager) spinal. main, bay. turret

From the literary references I agree, ships go boom if hit by higher tier spinals, suffer crits if hit by similar tier spinals, but also a single large nuke that makes it all the way to target can mission kill.

 

[mike wightman]

Next - what I like about HG79
only one factor for each weapon type to roll for
layered defence
different levels of damage surface/internal/radiation - special - critical

I don't mind rolling a handfull of d6 to determine things like - how many missiles the dampers take out, how many missiles the repulsors take out, etc.

 

[robject]

Rob, in a previous post I offered the concept of strt with outcomes and work backwards.

You're not the only one. Several years ago, Don McKinney gave that exact advice to Marc about starship combat.

It seems that Marc's brain doesn't normally work that way, but I totally get it.

As I understand this thread we are picking apart the 'good ideas' from HG79 and attempting to get something that may work for T5.

Well, until very very recently I was doing an autopsy to try to grok HG79. Given that my brain has trouble holding HG80 in my head, this is a piecemeal effort. There are still parts of it I probably don't know.

So I have now re-read all of the ship related stuff in AotI and the ship combat in Marc's short story Names.

T5 already has a tool that we can borrow - size, and the note that size can be decimalized.

small craft are S6.0->6.9
ACS are S7.0->7.9 (100 to 2500tons) main, bay, turret
BCS are S8.0->8.9 (2500 to 100000tons) spinal, main, bay. turret
FCS or Capitals are S9.0->9,9 (100000tons to 1000000tons or lager) spinal. main, bay. turret

Yes. It generally borrowed the T4 sizes, I believe, and turned them into 'universal' metrics for comparing the sizes of things, although the decimalization is new.

From the literary references I agree, ships go boom if hit by higher tier spinals, suffer crits if hit by similar tier spinals, but also a single large nuke that makes it all the way to target can mission kill.

That sounds reasonable.

Next - what I like about HG79
only one factor for each weapon type to roll for
layered defence
different levels of damage surface/internal/radiation - special - critical

Yes, the combination-statistical-factor thing seems like a useful abstraction!

Layered defense is a consistently recurring strategy in Traveller. I think everyone in GDW agreed with that concept.

I don't mind rolling a handfull of d6 to determine things like - how many missiles the dampers take out, how many missiles the repulsors take out, etc.

I am not fresh on gaming theory. It seems to me that rolling damage tends to be fun, while rolling to-hit tends to feel like work.

 

[robject]

start with outcomes and work backwards.

Those outcomes are the Combat Tables and Combat Results Tables, if I understand.

Sometimes Traveller has tried to push the CRT onto the ship design sheet. That would require a different set of system tradeoffs than HG.

 

[mike wightman]

Working backwards (and keep in mind Schrodinger ship combat damage resolution)

We should strive to keep surface explosion, interior explosion, radiation, special, critical and ship explodes.

next the size and tier of ship should affect damage outcomes

Tier weapons are spinals and for the small fry mains - three sizes of spinal within the tier should do

Bays are the smallest weapon type likely to even damage capitals and BCSs

Turret weapons are for point defence and shooting at ACS.

Armour and screens will maxed out as will computers for capitals and BCS.

Tradeoffs,

Evan at TL15 cramming everything into a hull and having a high jump number (3+) requires trade offs,

Lower TLs will require more of these tradeoffs at the various TL breaks.

 

[whartung]

Those outcomes are the Combat Tables and Combat Results Tables, if I understand.

The outcomes should be more how the combat feels. Traveller is very "Crit heavy", of the "one lucky shot, one kill" variety. I don't know if that was the intent at the start, or what they ended up with. Because, at the same time, while it's a "roast on the spit" burning all the outer weapons off kind of thing, the crits don't really get any easier as combat continues. If anything, they get harder as you take damage (as in its harder for you to crit your opponent, not that your ship is harder to crit).

 

[infojunky]

The outcomes should be more how the combat feels. Traveller is very "Crit heavy", of the "one lucky shot, one kill" variety. I don't know if that was the intent at the start, or what they ended up with. Because, at the same time, while it's a "roast on the spit" burning all the outer weapons off kind of thing, the crits don't really get any easier as combat continues. If anything, they get harder as you take damage (as in its harder for you to crit your opponent, not that your ship is harder to crit).

For fleet combat it works, for character combat it sucks...

 

[mike wightman]

I can imagine a boardgame where the player has command of a capital and has to defend it against a swarm of opponents, if that works out then perhaps introduce the capital's screening ships too.

For fleet vs fleet then a crit based combat system with a bit of attrition could work, but dice rolling for defence penetration should be handled in only a few rolls of the dice.

Perhaps ship system cards could be used to build your capital...

 

[kilemall]

For fleet combat it works, for character combat it sucks...

I’ve gone the character direction. Among other things the criticals are all disabled, not destroyed. BIG difference, but not good for TCS scale battle.

 

[whartung]

For fleet combat it works, for character combat it sucks...

Indeed, this was GDW finding as well. Brilliant Lances is very detailed hit location combat. Battle Rider is pretty much entirely crit based. In BL you care what systems get damaged, as much for RP value of, perhaps, knowing which characters just ate 150Mj of laser energy, but also to know precisely what parts of the ship need to be repaired after the battle. BR just wants the ships out of action. Nobody really cares the how or why, just stop them fighting.

 

[robject]

We should strive to keep surface explosion, interior explosion, radiation, special, critical and ship explodes.

If these were linked to ship size, there could be a progression of damage types.

(1) Exterior - (2) Interior (incl. Radiation and special) - (3) Critical

So for example an interior hit by a turret is demoted to an exterior hit against a 5,000 ton ship, and demoted to -nothing- against a 100,000 ton ship.

 

[whartung]

So for example an interior hit by a turret is demoted to an exterior hit against a 5,000 ton ship, and demoted to -nothing- against a 100,000 ton ship.

Just to put this in perspective.

An Iowa class BB is 33m wide, at its widest.

A random cylinder shaped 100K ton ship, using the length modifiers in FF&S, is 280m long, and about 80m in diameter. So, it's about twice as wide as an Iowa class BB.

Nothing to sneeze at to be sure, it's a big ship. Modern (large) container ships are bigger.

The singular problem is that most ships are crunchy on the outside, yet soft on the inside. Also, vital systems are commensurate in their size. An engine may be deeper inside of the ship. However, the engine, for a 100K ship is flat out big. An HG80 6G drive on a 100K ship is 17000 tons, as a cube, it's almost 62m on a side. So, that's a 20m "buffer" between that and the hull. "A lot", perhaps, but we're talking some high powered weapons here, and not a whole lot to absorb the damage once they get through that crunchy shell.

The point simply being that while the idea is sound, to a point, maybe not the limits you're proposing.

This is something TNE/BL does not take into account (as if it weren't detailed enough as is) -- the idea of dead space. If I have 20m of corridors, stateroom, and ventilation shafts between the hull and the engineering space, does that really absorb any tangible damage from, say, a penetrating laser. By design, since it's not considered, apparently not. They do consider the idea that you could armor your engineering section if you wanted, which suggest that the normal walls and such of a ship don't offer much protection at all.

 

[Condottiere]

Should be hull configuration dependent.

Easier to make a called shot on the Enterprise, than a Borg Cube.

 

[mike wightman]

If configuration is brought into it, then I would like to see configuration and surface area used to calculate number of hardpoints.
Configuration already has to be 'penetrated' for damage to occur for some weapons in HG79, the idea could be extended.

 

[mike wightman]

If these were linked to ship size, there could be a progression of damage types.

(1) Exterior - (2) Interior (incl. Radiation and special) - (3) Critical

So for example an interior hit by a turret is demoted to an exterior hit against a 5,000 ton ship, and demoted to -nothing- against a 100,000 ton ship.

The way I am coming to see it is that size makes a big difference, hence my suggestion for extra damage caused by relative size. The decimal size could play into this.

 

[robject]

Traveller implicitly already says size matters -- and it says so even despite High Guard, or perhaps _because of_ High Guard.

HG had these little battle riders slagging the monstrous and expensive dreadnoughts... and people complained. The guys who live by rules defended the results; after all, it's the official rules. If you can't run by the rules, then you have unsettled chaos. But, the folks who live by canon understand that TL15 dreadnoughts have a legit function; being able to destroy them at a fraction of the cost is an offense to the OTU. And this is the state we have lived with for ... well for more than 40 years. Although I don't know for sure that perhaps one of the subsequent rule sets fixed the problem. No? Probably not... otherwise we would have heard about it, isn't that right?

So yes, size makes a big difference.

What that should mean is that larger volumes have the dual advantage of (a) more raw firepower and (b) tougher hulls.

"Tougher" means "can take a beating and just.keep.fighting."

---

Here's what I'm thinking of.

My Nolikian attacks a -- well call it a Kokirrak. Same dangerous meson gun factor.

Round 1. Both hit each other. The Kokirrak might get some stronger secondary attacks, but the real damage is with that Factor T meson spine. Both take damage. Factor T meson spines hurt.

Round 2. Both hit each other. The Rider has some serious problems. The Kokirrak has some bruises.

Round 3. Both hit each other. The Rider is dead. The Kokirrak is looking for the next guy to attack.

---

WHY is the Rider now dead? 50% of that reason is that Factor T meson spines hurt. The other 50% is that the Rider has no reserves to soak damage. Crits are crits; there's nothing else that takes this damage except for critical systems.

WHY is the Kokirrak bruised? Well Factor T meson spines do hurt -- it damaged the Kokirrak for sure. But, it is a capital ship, and it's designed to take damage. Crits are dispersed or shifted or reduced or changed because the ship is large.

So does that mean EVERY 200,000 ton hull can soak up a lot of damage? Can a million-ton Sharurshid Merchant Freighter take multiple punches without exploding? Well, yes, I think that's worth considering.

Does that mean the bigger the ship, the more pillows it has stuffed inside of it that can absorb damage? That I do not know. If we went down a hull-points route, maybe -- T5 divided ACS into hit compartments that are maybe 5 to 20 tons each. I don't think that will work with BCS -- what are you going to do, divide a ship into thousand-ton segments? -- but once again, maybe there's a partial solution worth considering.

Or maybe the easy way out is the best way out -- grant DMs based on size class.

 

[robject]

Perhaps ship system cards could be used to build your capital...

The way I've heard it, cards could be used to customize your ship. Crew installation. An upgraded system.

This provides some slight fog of war at combat time. You didn't expect his capital to be able to do THAT.

 

[robject]

Tier weapons are spinals and for the small fry mains - three sizes of spinal within the tier should do

If we went that route, I would suggest a SpineMaker.

 

[mike wightman]

A spine maker would make a lot of sense, even the T is too small for a Tigress.

back to the rider vs BB - if we assume the rider has a similar factor spinal to the BB then the effect on the BB would be the same as if two BBs were duking it out - but because the rider is a size class lower it is going to more at risk of the ship go boom result just like any other large cruiser hit by a BB main gun. So the BBs do make sense in that they can take crits while lesser ships go boom.

Riders make sense if you have a numerical or tech advantage over the BBs, but an equal number of riders vs BBs should see a reasonable victory for the BatRon.

I doubt very much if the Zhodani commit points balanced forces to attack the Imperium, they would need a 5 to 1 advantage to make up for the tech disparity and that they cannot afford to lose a battle, while the Impies can take damage, retreat and repair until their reserves enter the field. That may/will mean the Imperium retreating and ceding the system/world being fought over until they can marshal enough of a counterattack to guarantee their eventual victory.

The history of the frontier wars is not good reading from an Imperial view until the Fifth.

 

[robject]

back to the rider vs BB - if we assume the rider has a similar factor spinal to the BB then the effect on the BB would be the same as if two BBs were duking it out - but because the rider is a size class lower it is going to more at risk of the ship go boom result just like any other large cruiser hit by a BB main gun. So the BBs do make sense in that they can take crits while lesser ships go boom.

Yes, and Marc seems to think that from that almost-space-combat sequence between those two Tigresses or Lionesses or whatever they are. One shot, one crit.

I've also heard, multiple times, that BCS is intended for capital ship warfare. Acknowledged that capital ships are never alone, and that nuke salvos and minefields can stop a capital; nevertheless, the battle goes to the winning capitals.

In Classic Traveller personal combat, "armor" just means it's harder to score a hit that does damage. In this context, that would presumably mean harder to score a hit that does critical damage.

Riders make sense if you have a numerical or tech advantage over the BBs, but an equal number of riders vs BBs should see a reasonable victory for the BatRon.

The tech advantage is pretty much baked into Traveller ever since Imperium (so in other words, even before Traveller). Maybe I should include that in my list of presuppositional foundations to Traveller. Economics is All, Jump Drive is the speed of communication, Shotguns in Space, and Tech Kills -- in that order?

I doubt very much if the Zhodani commit points balanced forces to attack the Imperium, they would need a 5 to 1 advantage to make up for the tech disparity and that they cannot afford to lose a battle, while the Impies can take damage, retreat and repair until their reserves enter the field. That may/will mean the Imperium retreating and ceding the system/world being fought over until they can marshal enough of a counterattack to guarantee their eventual victory.

"Strategic retreat" is a term I have never heard before, but it smacks of Truth. Maybe "A Strategic Lose" even. Ha!

A: Sir, the Joes are throwing hundreds of spines at us!
B: Ah, the Eurisko Offense. Call all forces to abandon this system. We are retreating.
A: Sir yes Sir!

--- later, in jumpspace ---

(knock on door)
B: Come!
A: Sir... I have... questions.
B: Wot, you think it's noble to die on the field of battle?
A: Well.... we're sure to lose the war if we keep retreating...
B: Son, let me lay this out for you plainly. Economics drives interstellar empire.
A: That's Space Econ 101. Everyone knows that.

B: Sure. But what about in war? Does economics drive war?
A: Space Econ 201. Old Admiral Aramais likes to quote to us that war is "economics by other means."
B: Okay. Is it economical to lose all your dreadnoughts in battle with little pea-shooters?
A: Never, sir, but...
B: But?
A: Well, if you lose your systems, you're losing economic power, but also your projection of power.
B: Depends on the systems.
A: Jewell would be a nice engine to own.
B: Compared to Esalin and even Regina, yes. What about Efate?
A: Well yeah, Efate is a monster.
B: And Glisten? Mora? Strouden? And that's just the Marches, months away from the core. Need I go on?
A: Now we're back to Space Econ 101, where they talk about jump being the speed of communication and transport.
B: Right. That's item two in SE 101's Five Laws of Space Empire. And what's the third?

A: Tech Kills. Tech is a force multiplier.
B: Right. So we retreat, the Joes take a few systems, then what?
A: We... regroup?
B: You betcha. And?
A: Ah, we get reinforcements.
B: Maybe yes. If so, we go back and kick their butts. What if we don't get reinforcements?
A: Well we lose territory.
B: But that's never permanent. Eventually our technical superiority allows us to pick our time to reengage.
A: But... that could be years in the future.
B: So?

A: So... but surely the Joes know this. Why do they keep engaging if they know they have inferior forces?
B: That, my son, is the REAL question.