High Guard 1.5 (<1979 edition)

[mike wightman]

How is it overcomplicated to have one more DM for weapon factors 0-9 - size difference? It's no more than having to have agility as a DM in HG80, is that overcomplicated?

Spinals have their own rules in HG80, are they overcomplicated?

 

[Grav_Moped]

My take on the Tigress vs Zho - the Tigress is size 5 armour 9, while the Zho is size 4 armour 8, the Tigress gets +2 on penetration rolls (computer and size dif) while the Zho is at -2 on all penetration rolls. The Tigress inflicts 6 damage rolls per successful defence penetration while the Zho inflicts only 4.

Why would a Meson T in a Tigress be better than a Meson T in a Kokirrak? I.e. tonnage based to hit and damage?

It wouldn't be, I think. Damage inflicted by spinal mounts should be the same for a given target and spinal mount weapon. Size damage DMs should apply based on absolute target tonnage, not based on size differential between attacker and target.

Damage inflicted by bay and turret batteries are modified by attacker-target size differential because battery factors are normalized by tonnage. Spinal mounts are one per ship, and thus not normalized by attacker tonnage.

 

[kilemall]

I think it’s deeply silly to have something as big as the Tigress be limited to one spinal weapon.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I think it’s deeply silly to have something as big as the Tigress be limited to one spinal weapon.

Well, the alternative is to create a category of mega-spinal weapons such that only the largest ships could carry them.
Then "normal" spinal weapons become the equivalent of super-sized bays.

Lensman arms race with a Traveller accent.

 

[kilemall]

Well, the alternative is to create a category of mega-spinal weapons such that only the largest ships could carry them.
Then "normal" spinal weapons become the equivalent of super-sized bays.

Lensman arms race with a Traveller accent.

I guess you could do that, my take is you just build in multiple spinals.

Like so.

https://imgur.com/Bciex6s

Upgrade.

https://imgur.com/f3xjMpT

Or at the Tigress level, they can be functionally Very Big Turrets, imagine the big railguns from the Expanse's Donnanger, only they are 3000 ton spinals mounted as external deployable weapons on 100000 ton plus ships.

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/expanse/images/c/c0/Donnager_Railgun.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180718191608

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's a balance question, and depends on what a "spinal-mount-class weapon" is. If they're weapons so large a ship can only mount one, then they should scale up to the size of the ship, however large. If they're just weapons so large you can only mount one per (some large tonnage), they can top out at (some large tonnage and power) and then won't be spinal mounts at all on the largest ships.

But the largest ships really ought to have the option of having appropriately large single spinal mounts.

 

[Condottiere]

Likely the reason spinal mounts got fat in Mongoose.

 

[mike wightman]

I think it’s deeply silly to have something as big as the Tigress be limited to one spinal weapon.

So do I but that is not up for discussion as the aim is to preserve as much of HG79 (and even HG80) as can be done while 'fixing' the issues.

 

[mike wightman]

Well, the alternative is to create a category of mega-spinal weapons such that only the largest ships could carry them.
Then "normal" spinal weapons become the equivalent of super-sized bays.

Lensman arms race with a Traveller accent.

The Oz suggested this about fifteen years ago It works as a house rule but doesn't match the OTU (except for TNE when you could have more than one spinal).
I'd have to check but off the top of my head it was something like 100,000 ton ships could mount 1000t spinals in super bays, 200,000t it goes up to 2000t eyc.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Why would a Meson T in a Tigress be better than a Meson T in a Kokirrak? I.e. tonnage based to hit and damage?

It's not, this is for bays/turrets - spinals keep their own rules (but need bonus damage rolls added)

OK, let's rephrase: Why would 50 missile bays in a Tigress be so different from 50 missile bays in a Kokirrak?

50 bays in a Tigress is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 500 kDt = 54 pts/kDt => factor 1, DM+5, damage 6.
50 bays in a Kokirrak is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 200 kDt = 135 pts/kDt => factor 3, DM+4, damage 5.
50 bays in an Atlantic is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 75 kDt = 360 pts/kDt => factor 7, DM+3, damage 4.

Makes absolutely no sense to me, it's the same bays...

Note that none of the above batteries would be able to penetrate dampers while shooting at each other, except the Atlantic shooting at the Kokirrak would penetrate once in a blue moon (1/36).

You're overcomplicating again...

Does that explain why I think you are overcomplicating?


What would simpler look like? How about calculate factor for one bay/some turrets (w/o normalisation), do one damage per bay/set of turrets, ships soak one damage per kDt. In essence, roll one attack, multiply damage by number of identical weapons^‡.

Example: A Tigress (500 kDt, 430 bays) has a factor 9 missile battery doing 430 damage, and it takes 500^† damage to inflict a hit.

We could even fairly simply allow the Tigress to split the attack over more than one target, without bogging down the game...


^† OK, that is too much, how about dividing by 2.5^‡ to get 200 damage to inflict a hit?

^‡ Just by random, completely unrelated to Mongoose, of course.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And the Tigress ought to be a monster.

In an OTU with one shot, one kill weapons (meson spinals), it's a white elephant.

 

[mike wightman]

You are missing the bit where I suggested adding the size factor to the computed weapon factor during the design phase.

50 bays in a Tigress is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 500 kDt = 54 pts/kDt => factor 1+5=6, weapon penetration DM relative size, damage 6.
50 bays in a Kokirrak is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 200 kDt = 135 pts/kDt => factor 3+4=7, weapon penetration DM relative size, damage 5.
50 bays in an Atlantic is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 75 kDt = 360 pts/kDt => factor 7+3=9(capped). weapon penetration DM relative size, damage 4.

(a nod towards batteries bearing perhaps)

I still prefer a log scale for weapon factor with weapon penetration DM relative size and bonus damage + size.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

50 bays in a Tigress is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 500 kDt = 54 pts/kDt => factor 1+5=6, weapon penetration DM relative size, damage 6.
50 bays in a Kokirrak is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 200 kDt = 135 pts/kDt => factor 3+4=7, weapon penetration DM relative size, damage 5.
50 bays in an Atlantic is 50 × 540 pts = 27000 pts, 27000 / 75 kDt = 360 pts/kDt => factor 7+3=9(capped). weapon penetration DM relative size, damage 4.

Ok, first you normalise the battery down to peanuts, then you crudely compensate it up. Now the 50 bays are better, just because they are mounted on a larger ship. A very large freighter with some bays is superior to a cruiser. Does any of that sounds simple?

In a Tigress there is no difference between 430 bays and 112 bays. Obviously?

A single turret weapon mounted on a Tigress is factor 5, penetrates better and does more damage than a few bays mounted on a cruiser? Simplicity itself!

 

[mike wightman]

No because a single turret should normalise to 0 depending on how you round numbers

9/500=0.018 rounds to 0, to qualify for a factor of 1 a Tigress would need a minimum of 54 triple turrets if no rounding, 27 if you round 0.5 to 1.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No because a single turret should normalise to 0 depending on how you round numbers

9/500=0.018 rounds to 0, to qualify for a factor of 1 a Tigress would need a minimum of 54 triple turrets if no rounding, 27 if you round 0.5 to 1.

Ok, battery strength 0 is not modified.

So 34 laser turrets on a Tigress (or very large freighter) is factor 6, DM+5, 6 damage.
50 identical turrets on an Atlantic is factor 6, DM+4, 4 damage.

34 turrets are on a large freighter are obviously much better than 50 turrets on a cruiser? Ok...


If we take the same 34 turrets and place them on 1.1 kDt frigates two at a time, we get 17 batteries of factor 8 DM+2 doing a total of 51 damage? Obviously.

 

[mike wightman]

two triple turrets = 18 points, divide by 1.1 round down you end up with base factor 4 plus 2 for size

Frigate two triple laser factor 6, size for penetration 2, three damage rolls

50 triple laser turrets on an Atlantic 450 points divide by 75, 6 equates to factor 3. Atlantic is size 3 so overall factor is 6

Atlantic 50 triple laser turrets factor 6, size for penetration 3, four damage rolls.

Atlantic vs frigate - Atlantic +1 DM for penetration, frigates -1DM

 

[AnotherDilbert]

two triple turrets = 18 points, divide by 1.1 round down you end up with base factor 4 plus 2 for size

I used the High Guard 1.5 pdf.

One laser at TL-15 is 60 pts. Two triple turrets 2 × 3 × 60 = 360 pts, 360 / 1.1 = 327 pts/kDt => factor 6 + 2 for size = factor 8.


Does the exact factor of the weapon really matter to this level of absurdity?

 

[mike wightman]

Yes when combined with the combat matrices.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So 34 laser turrets on a Tigress (or very large freighter) is factor 6, DM+5, 6 damage.
50 identical turrets on an Atlantic is factor 6, DM+4, 4 damage.
...
If we take the same 34 turrets and place them on 1.1 kDt frigates two at a time, we get 17 batteries of factor 8 DM+2 doing a total of 51 damage? ...

So, this is a simple and reasonable system?

The firepower of the weapons is entirely dependant on the size of ships they are mounted on, not by the weapons themselves?

 

[robject]

LOL

(1) 100 LBays is 100 LBays

I *do* like the idea that 100 LBays is 100 LBays, regardless of where they're installed. Float them alone in space with a magazine and a bridge. Eurisko is your friend. Of course that's when a well-designed fighter earns its money.

In other words, if your ship is bigger, you get bigger firepower because you can jam more of them into the hull.

If we need more bay-battery factors then we can have up to 33 of them and give spines their own home.

---

(2) HG1 for Capitals

or, Turrets are for the Unarmored

I also don't mind relegating turrets to Factor 1. I think in order to make the Tigress happy, we focus on capital ships. If that's so, then small starships and small craft will get the short end of the stick.

(It also lets me defer small craft weapon considerations).

For that matter, it seems to me that small ship battles -- e.g. the Beowulf vs the Corsair -- is much better handled by existing, more granular combat systems. At this scale, ships under 1000 tons are likely to be a bit abstract.

Note that small-craft have no design flow here. I suspect that HG1 maybe should be capital-focused.

---

(3) No Capital Screens

At the same time, I also appreciate very much the restraint in HG2 and HG1 on screens. I wonder if there was a desire to put them in bays as well, resulting in a similar amount of pain and granularity.

But it seems to me that the gigantic ships get short shrift in the defense department, and I think you guys see this as well. They DO need to be tougher.

Million-ton supercargoliners are not tougher.

Therefore, it is the defensive choices that make a ship tougher. A larger ship has room to spare to make it even tougher. Mike suggested a bonus, which makes sense, but what it is implying, I think, is that defenses scale with tonnage.