High Guard 1.5 (<1979 edition)

[AnotherDilbert]

The problem, if I see it correctly, is that the "short cuts" -- namely, the ship's computer model, the Meson spines J+, and the PA spines N+ -- are too powerful.

The computer is supremely important, so basically a proxy for TL.
Large spinals are great at hitting and penetrating, but still only do one damage roll. Not that great for the cost...

Nukes can do Crits, so at a guess ~500 Dt missile riders with a missile bay will kill more or less anything, at a budget.

Something like this?

RM-21044G2-959900-00009-0        MCr 338         280 Dton
bearing     1         1                           Crew=17
batteries   1         1                             TL=15
                                        Cargo=1 Fuel=11,2
                      
Single Occupancy                                      2       338
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             2            280         
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                       34
Scoops              Streamlined                                 0
Armour              9                  9              4         5
                                                                
Manoeuvre D                            4    1        34        20
Power Plant                            4    1        11        45
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 4 weeks                     11         
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        20         1
Computer            m/7fib             G    1        18       100
                                                                
Staterooms                                 17        68         9
                                                                
Cargo                                                 2         
                                                                
Bay                 Missile, 50 t      9    1        50        13
Triple Turret 2/bat Sand               5    1         2         2    2 mounts organised into 1 battery.
                                                                
Nuclear Damper                         9    1        20        50
Meson Screen                           9    1        40        60
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 337,78           Sum:         2       338
Class Cost          MCr  70,93          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 270,22

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Or as a ship:

FM-71444G2-979900-30009-0        MCr 639         700 Dton
bearing     1     1   1                           Crew=24
batteries   1     1   1                             TL=15
                                        Cargo=24 Fuel=308

Dual Occupancy                                       25       639
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             7            700         
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                       84
Scoops              Streamlined                                 1
Armour              9                  9             11        13
                                                                
Jump Drive                             4    1        35       140
Manoeuvre D                            4    1        84        50
Power Plant                            4    1        28       112
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-4, 4 weeks            4       308         
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        20         4
Computer            m/7fib             G    1        18       100
                                                                
Staterooms                                  4        16         2
Staterooms, Half                           20        40         5
                                                                
Cargo                                                25         
                                                                
Bay                 Missile, 50 t      9    1        50        13
Triple Turret       Beam               3    1         1         3
Triple Turret 5/bat Sand               7    1         5         4    5 mounts organised into 1 battery.
                                                                
Nuclear Damper                         9    1        20        50
Meson Screen                           9    1        40        60
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 639,45           Sum:        25       639
Class Cost          MCr 134,28          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 511,56

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Hmm, a better sandcaster is probably worth is, since it works against anything but mesons?

FM-A1444G2-999900-00009-0        MCr 814       1 000 Dton
bearing     1         1                           Crew=28
batteries   1         1                             TL=15
                                        Cargo=64 Fuel=440

Dual Occupancy                                       64       814
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             A          1 000         
Configuration       Needle/Wedge       1                      120
Scoops              Streamlined                                 1
Armour              9                  9             15        18
                                                                
Jump Drive                             4    1        50       200
Manoeuvre D                            4    1       120        72
Power Plant                            4    1        40       160
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-4, 4 weeks            4       440         
                                                                
Bridge                                      1        20         5
Computer            m/7fib             G    1        18       100
                                                                
Staterooms                                 16        64         8
                                                                
Cargo                                                64         
                                                                
Bay                 Missile, 100 t     9    1       100        13
Triple Turret 9/bat Sand               9    1         9         7    9 mounts organised into 1 battery.
                                                                
Nuclear Damper                         9    1        20        50
Meson Screen                           9    1        40        60
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 813,75           Sum:        64       814
Class Cost          MCr 170,89          Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 651,00

 

[robject]

So those first two designs need to be promoted to 1200 and 1600 tons, since you need a thousand-ton hull to field a bay, then the extra hardpoints for the turrets.

And the third design needs to be 1900 tons, since you use 9 more hardpoints with those sandcaster turrets.


It occurs to me that you're using High Guard 2, and therefore are confusing me. High Guard 1 does it like this, if we use hardpoint nomenclature:

1 spine: 10 hardpoints
1 bay:   10 hardpoints
1 turret: 1 hardpoint

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So those first two designs need to be promoted to 1000 tons, since you need a thousand-ton hull to field a bay.
And the third design needs to be 1900 tons, since you use 9 more hardpoints with those sandcaster turrets.

Not in '79, I believe...

Hardpoints = ( Hull - spinal - bays ) / 100.

Example: The JTAS Gazelle: 240 Dt + drop tank, one 10 Dt PA bay + 2 hardpoints.
Hardpoints = ( 240 Dt - 10 Dt ) / 100 = 2.3, rounded down to 2.

That is not how it's done in HG'80, of course.

 

[robject]

Not in '79, I believe...

Hardpoints = ( Hull - spinal - bays ) / 100.

Example: The JTAS Gazelle: 240 Dt + drop tank, one 10 Dt PA bay + 2 hardpoints.
Hardpoints = ( 240 Dt - 10 Dt ) / 100 = 2.3, rounded down to 2.

Ahhhhh ok. So one bay per 1,000 tons includes fractions of 1,000 tons... a ship 1,000 tons or under may have one bay.

Now I see why the Gazelle was a little monster under HG1. The 10 ton TL15 PA bay is performant. I'm really liking that particular aspect of things.

This also means that, for all practical purposes, after a certain low hull volume threshold, every hull perhaps ought to have attack factors for all turret weapon types.



^^ And actually, the spine and fighter tubes don't seem to be considered in the hardpoint allocation. Those are considered solely for the purpose of bay allocation.

a ship may have up to one hardpoint per 100 tons of ship not otherwise used for bays. p27

So Hardpoints = (Hull - bays) / 100

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, I believe so. Don't count me as any kind of authority on the subject of HG'79.

 

[mike wightman]

I don't think there is an authority on HG79 since we have all ignored it for so long, imagine where we would be with HG79 by now if we had spent the past forty years discussing it

As to the bays allowed by hull size the words used in HG80 and HG 79 are similar but what HG80 does is give an example.

HG80:

One bay (regardless of size) may be installed per 1,000 tons of hull available.
Tonnage not otherwise allocated to weaponry is considered available...
One hardpoint is allowed per 100 tons of hull not otherwise allocated to weapons.

HG79

One bay (regardless of size) may be installed per 1000 tons of hull available...
a ship may have up to one hardpoint per 100 tons of ship not otherwise used for bays.

 

[mike wightman]

A couple of thoughts
any log scale as Another Dilbert says is going to lack granularity, but when dealing with such a range {fighters to battleships) such is the nature of the beast
specialisation - as Rob has spotted there is definitely a case for escort class ship specialists that have one bay of massed turret factor dialed up to 9.

That said looking at the numbers AD has brought to the table factors of 1-5 would be the standard range for up to escort class ships, with 5-9 being for an escort specialist or the range for cruisers and above.

The synergy between weapon factor and penetrating defences will need looking at some point, but first we have to get weapon points and factors sorted

 

[Silverhawk]

So the thought that came to me was that instead of one continuous scale you do two. The first is for small ships with the break point in tonnage to be determined. The second for the big ships. They likely should overlap so that the biggest small ships have a slight chance to damage a large ship.

 

[mike wightman]

I'm tempted to go with weapon attack factors 1-9 being for bays only and turret weapons rated as a point defence factor that could be used offensively vs unarmoured targets or ships less than 1000t.

 

[robject]

So the thought that came to me was that instead of one continuous scale you do two. The first is for small ships with the break point in tonnage to be determined. The second for the big ships. They likely should overlap so that the biggest small ships have a slight chance to damage a large ship.

In a way, that's how HG1 divides the battery factors. There's a very low, introductory level at Factor-1, then a midrange linear progression, then the final two factors ramp up a bit stronger.

I'm tempted to go with weapon attack factors 1-9 being for bays only and turret weapons rated as a point defence factor that could be used offensively vs unarmoured targets or ships less than 1000t.

Marc's brain also sees turrets as point defense when he talks about Big Ship Combat. Your added nuance also seems reasonable to me and accommodates "Small" Ship Combat.

That would open up the range for Bay attack factors without having to extend the domain.

 

[mike wightman]

There needs to be a laser bay option and then we could definitely go with

turrets - point defence factor, only useful for attacking small craft, sub-1000t ships and unarmoured ships of any size class
bays - 10t, 50t and 100t options, to include a laser bay
spinal- could we use a spinal factor of 1-9 instead of A-T?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Marc's brain also sees turrets as point defense when he talks about Big Ship Combat.

And this is where we run into trouble ... trying to use a single continuum to handle EVERYTHING and put it all on the same scale.

Ideally speaking there ought to be 4 combat systems.

1. Small Craft combat (hull size: 0 = 0-99 tons)
2. Small Ship combat (hull size: 1-E = 100-5999 tons) (note: this corresponds to LBB2 hull sizes)
3. Medium Ship combat (hull size: F-K = 6000-19,999 tons)
4. Big Ship combat (hull size: L+ = 20,000 tons and up)

The advantage of breaking things out like that is that you can then assign different weapon systems to different "ship combat roles" (per se).

For example:
Only Turrets can be used against Small Craft.
Turrets and 10-50 ton Bays can be used against Small Ships.
50-100 ton Bays and Spinal Mounts can be used against Medium Ships.
100 ton Bays and Spinal Mounts can be used against Big Ships.

What you wind up with in such a scheme is the notion of Layered Defense, in which not every weapon can be usefully deployed against every scale of adversary. It also means that you can't just have a Tigress focus its ENTIRE complement of firepower onto a single adversary (thus using a sledgehammer to swat a fly). It means that the "scale" of an opposing force can become a factor (hence "30 rebel fighters" being a problem for a space station built to defend against large scale direct assaults by a fleet of cruisers).

Breaking weapons out into different "combat categories" such as I'm outlining above would inevitably require changes to USP coding ... although, if it is done right that can hardly be a bad thing (and just typing that I can already envision how it could be done without too much fuss).

Note also that such a formulation of breaking out different weapons "by category" based on weapon size like that also means a few other things as well ... such as the +6 DM for factors 1-9 on damage tables effect. You could convert that into being something akin to:

• Turrets = +6 DM
• 10 ton Bays = +5 DM
• 50 ton Bays = +3 DM
• 100 ton Bays = +2 DM
• Spinal Mount = +0 DM

At which point, revising the USP to encode such differences in "weapon scales" becomes remarkably useful.

spinal- could we use a spinal factor of 1-9 instead of A-T?

Spinal mounts could be usefully condensed down to factors PA=A-H and Meson=A-J and remarkably little of value would be lost.
Spinal mounts of K+ are just overkill for the sake over overkill ... and while there are some people who will claim that overkill IS THE POINT, from a game enjoyment standpoint overkill rarely translates into FUN.

At most, I would be of a mind to extend PA spinals into the A-P range while Meson spinals run in the A-N range (using LBB5.80 as the touchstone reference point for what those factors would mean as a common point of reference). Giving both spinals an A-T range of factors is just overdoing it, so trim the fat/waste and streamline things a bit when you have the chance to.

 

[mike wightman]

If you want a full continuum then see TNE which covers everything from personal combat to BB fleets.
The purpose of HG was to give tools for fleet action within the CT framework.
Smallcraft - handled well enough by ship's boat combat system
ACS - LBB2 combat
BCS - HG79

Unlike the cinematic cartoon physics of Star Wars a squadron or six of fighters or even escort class vessels should be swatted by BCSs

 

[Silverhawk]

And this is where we run into trouble ... trying to use a single continuum to handle EVERYTHING and put it all on the same scale.

Ideally speaking there ought to be 4 combat systems.

1. Small Craft combat (hull size: 0 = 0-99 tons)
2. Small Ship combat (hull size: 1-E = 100-5999 tons) (note: this corresponds to LBB2 hull sizes)
3. Medium Ship combat (hull size: F-K = 6000-19,999 tons)
4. Big Ship combat (hull size: L+ = 20,000 tons and up)

The advantage of breaking things out like that is that you can then assign different weapon systems to different "ship combat roles" (per se).

For example:
Only Turrets can be used against Small Craft.
Turrets and 10-50 ton Bays can be used against Small Ships.
50-100 ton Bays and Spinal Mounts can be used against Medium Ships.
100 ton Bays and Spinal Mounts can be used against Big Ships.

What you wind up with in such a scheme is the notion of Layered Defense, in which not every weapon can be usefully deployed against every scale of adversary. It also means that you can't just have a Tigress focus its ENTIRE complement of firepower onto a single adversary (thus using a sledgehammer to swat a fly). It means that the "scale" of an opposing force can become a factor (hence "30 rebel fighters" being a problem for a space station built to defend against large scale direct assaults by a fleet of cruisers).

Breaking weapons out into different "combat categories" such as I'm outlining above would inevitably require changes to USP coding ... although, if it is done right that can hardly be a bad thing (and just typing that I can already envision how it could be done without too much fuss).

Note also that such a formulation of breaking out different weapons "by category" based on weapon size like that also means a few other things as well ... such as the +6 DM for factors 1-9 on damage tables effect. You could convert that into being something akin to:

• Turrets = +6 DM
• 10 ton Bays = +5 DM
• 50 ton Bays = +3 DM
• 100 ton Bays = +2 DM
• Spinal Mount = +0 DM

At which point, revising the USP to encode such differences in "weapon scales" becomes remarkably useful.

Spinal mounts could be usefully condensed down to factors PA=A-H and Meson=A-J and remarkably little of value would be lost.
Spinal mounts of K+ are just overkill for the sake over overkill ... and while there are some people who will claim that overkill IS THE POINT, from a game enjoyment standpoint overkill rarely translates into FUN.

At most, I would be of a mind to extend PA spinals into the A-P range while Meson spinals run in the A-N range (using LBB5.80 as the touchstone reference point for what those factors would mean as a common point of reference). Giving both spinals an A-T range of factors is just overdoing it, so trim the fat/waste and streamline things a bit when you have the chance to.

I agree with you. Am I understanding that the DMs are for damage? If so, there probably should be an alteration to the target size table. I look at the HG80 one and think that it would be better if it was something more like

	0 (zero)	1 to A	B to K	L to P	Q+
0 (zero)	0	+1	+2	+3	+4
1 to A	-1	0	+1	+2	+3
B to K	-2	-1	0	+1	+2
L to P	-3	-2	-1	0	+1
Q+	-4	-3	-2	-1	0

Ships off the same size should be a wash, bigger should have a harder time hitting smaller, and smaller should find it easy to hit but hard to damage.

Just a couple of thoughts

 

[Silverhawk]

If you want a full continuum then see TNE which covers everything from personal combat to BB fleets.
The purpose of HG was to give tools for fleet action within the CT framework.
Smallcraft - handled well enough by ship's boat combat system
ACS - LBB2 combat
BCS - HG79

Unlike the cinematic cartoon physics of Star Wars a squadron or six of fighters or even escort class vessels should be swatted by BCSs

Mike, I agree that if they hit they should be swatted but size should make some sort of difference.

 

[kilemall]

If you want a full continuum then see TNE which covers everything from personal combat to BB fleets.
The purpose of HG was to give tools for fleet action within the CT framework.
Smallcraft - handled well enough by ship's boat combat system
ACS - LBB2 combat
BCS - HG79

Unlike the cinematic cartoon physics of Star Wars a squadron or six of fighters or even escort class vessels should be swatted by BCSs

Sim, or story sim?

 

[robject]

Before we reassign Factor strengths, let's see how the entire system works together to yield iconic ships. Then, we can compare those designs with our expectations for those ships.

I would prefer to do as little surgery as possible. I am fine with a system that allows extensions. Laser bays are perfectly kosher for me, but can we not tinker until its core issues are fixed? Don't tempt me to embed Traveller5 into HG1. That would be like handing Boromir the Ring... terrible terrible things would happen...

We have something that GDW did not have in 1979 and 1980: We have Supplement 9, the Spinward Marches Campaign, plus thirty years of online grousing over the OTU.

We are the real-life, older equivalent of those nerd kids from Galaxy Quest.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Finally, I'd really like to know how the Lightning got Factor-9s in so many things. I am not sure that's possible...

HG'80 ships get factor 9 with a single bay. More bays are more batteries.

Rated according to HG'79 it would be much lower.

The AHL:
One spinal PA-N => factor N.
24 missile bays, 50 Dt => 24 × 40 pts = 960 Pts, 960 / 60 kDt = 16 pts/kDt => factor 5.
190 triple beam laser turrets => 190 × 3 × 2 = 1140 pts, 1140 / 60 kDt = 19 pts/kDt => factor 4.
40 dual fusion turrets => 40 × 2 × 10 = 800 pts, 800 / 60 kDt = 13 pts/kDt => factor 1.
130 triple sand turrets => 130 × 3 × 3 = 1170 pts, 1170 / 60 kDt = 19 pts/kDt => factor 5.
etc.


Tigress:
One spinal Meson-T => factor T.
430 missile bays, 50 Dt => 430 × 40 = 17200 pts, 17200 / 500 kDt = 34 pts/kDt => factor 7.
100 triple beam laser turrets => 100 × 3 × 2 = 600 pts, 600 / 500 kDt = 1.2 pts/kDt => factor 1.
etc.


So, the 430 bays on the Tigress are slightly more likely than the 24 bays on the AHL to hit, but will do the exact same damage... HG'79 really is quite silly.