High Guard 3

[hcobb]

Originally posted by The Oz:
I can't say I've played it, but I know of it. Does it use combat mechanisms similar to what I'm talking about?

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_5008.html
> Fire is simultaneous for each weapon type (so a
> ship destroyed by beam fire can still fire its
> own beams but can't fire its torpedoes). Roll
> 1d6 for each weapon factor firing and, depending
> on the range to target, score a hit if the roll
> is high enough. Ships take 1, 2, or 3 hits to
> damage; smaller ships are destroyed when
> damaged, while larger ones are step-reduced by
> flipping them over.

-HJC

 

[The Oz]

Similar, but it sounds like there's no difference in the damage done by the weapons (that is, a hit from one beam is the same as a hit from one torpedo).

The system I have in mind would make missile combat damaging but not lethal to ships, while beam (spinal meson gun) combat would be devastating.

 

[The Oz]

Similar, but it sounds like there's no difference in the damage done by the weapons (that is, a hit from one beam is the same as a hit from one torpedo).

The system I have in mind would make missile combat damaging but not lethal to ships, while beam (spinal meson gun) combat would be devastating.

 

[hcobb]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Similar, but it sounds like there's no difference in the damage done by the weapons (that is, a hit from one beam is the same as a hit from one torpedo).

The system I have in mind would make missile combat damaging but not lethal to ships, while beam (spinal meson gun) combat would be devastating.

Is that a bug or feature of HG?

If it's a bug, try some of the fixes me and others have suggested to keep the known Imp battleships from being oversized deathtraps.

-HJC

 

[hcobb]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Similar, but it sounds like there's no difference in the damage done by the weapons (that is, a hit from one beam is the same as a hit from one torpedo).

The system I have in mind would make missile combat damaging but not lethal to ships, while beam (spinal meson gun) combat would be devastating.

Is that a bug or feature of HG?

If it's a bug, try some of the fixes me and others have suggested to keep the known Imp battleships from being oversized deathtraps.

-HJC

 

[The Oz]

Well, bug or feature depends on how you like it. Right now I'm building on strict HG, so it's a feature. Once I've got it working, I'll change it to the house rules I use, which treat that as a bug.

OTOH, even using house rules where spinal meson guns are not so devastating (usually by allowing meson screens to act as "armor" against meson gun fire) the type of damage that meson guns do is different and more lethal than the damage from missiles.

Meson guns roll on the Internal Explosion table while nuclear missiles roll on the Surface Explosion table (both also roll on the Radiation table, but I'm ignoring that for now). Thanks to the heavy armor found on most capital ships, rolls by missiles on the Surface Explosion table are usually shifted up to become Fuel-1 or Weapon-1 hits or just "No Effect". However, even if you allow meson screens to act as "armor" and shift meson gun damage rolls upwards on the Internal Explosion table, you still get a damaging assortment of potential results: Jump-1, Power Plant-1, Computer-1, and possibly worst of all, Screens-1 or even Screens-2. All of these results are much more important than scraping weapons off the hull or making leaks in fuel tanks.

So, even if you're in a universe where meson screens are more effective (like TNE, for instance) meson guns still do a qualitatively different kind of damage, a kind that is much more likely to lead to the destruction or capture of the target, rather than just forcing a disarmed retreat.

 

[The Oz]

Well, bug or feature depends on how you like it. Right now I'm building on strict HG, so it's a feature. Once I've got it working, I'll change it to the house rules I use, which treat that as a bug.

OTOH, even using house rules where spinal meson guns are not so devastating (usually by allowing meson screens to act as "armor" against meson gun fire) the type of damage that meson guns do is different and more lethal than the damage from missiles.

Meson guns roll on the Internal Explosion table while nuclear missiles roll on the Surface Explosion table (both also roll on the Radiation table, but I'm ignoring that for now). Thanks to the heavy armor found on most capital ships, rolls by missiles on the Surface Explosion table are usually shifted up to become Fuel-1 or Weapon-1 hits or just "No Effect". However, even if you allow meson screens to act as "armor" and shift meson gun damage rolls upwards on the Internal Explosion table, you still get a damaging assortment of potential results: Jump-1, Power Plant-1, Computer-1, and possibly worst of all, Screens-1 or even Screens-2. All of these results are much more important than scraping weapons off the hull or making leaks in fuel tanks.

So, even if you're in a universe where meson screens are more effective (like TNE, for instance) meson guns still do a qualitatively different kind of damage, a kind that is much more likely to lead to the destruction or capture of the target, rather than just forcing a disarmed retreat.

 

[Piper]

I'm not sure if this will provide the level of detail you're looking for, but the system used in Battle Rider might be worth a look.
I can't find a decent review in the web anywhere, and I don't know if you're familiar with it so please excuse me if I'm re-hashing information you already have.
Battle Rider is the fleet combat game for Brilliant Lances. Like BL, it is based on TNE, but the systems are easily adapted to any version of Traveller.
The designer considered some of the same issues you're discussing and the approach he took was to ignore any damage except critical hits. His reasoning was that ships of any significant size can shrug off most surface hits and criticals were the actual ship killers. As only critical hits are counted, damage record-keeping is simplified and the speed of play is increased.
Movement is by vector on a hex map, but the rules could easily be adapted to a line/reserve, long/short range abstract as in High Guard and Imperium.
And *of course* I can't find the (expletive deleted) rule book at the moment, so that's about all I can pull out of memory.
Again, my apologies if this isn't where you're headed.

 

[Piper]

I'm not sure if this will provide the level of detail you're looking for, but the system used in Battle Rider might be worth a look.
I can't find a decent review in the web anywhere, and I don't know if you're familiar with it so please excuse me if I'm re-hashing information you already have.
Battle Rider is the fleet combat game for Brilliant Lances. Like BL, it is based on TNE, but the systems are easily adapted to any version of Traveller.
The designer considered some of the same issues you're discussing and the approach he took was to ignore any damage except critical hits. His reasoning was that ships of any significant size can shrug off most surface hits and criticals were the actual ship killers. As only critical hits are counted, damage record-keeping is simplified and the speed of play is increased.
Movement is by vector on a hex map, but the rules could easily be adapted to a line/reserve, long/short range abstract as in High Guard and Imperium.
And *of course* I can't find the (expletive deleted) rule book at the moment, so that's about all I can pull out of memory.
Again, my apologies if this isn't where you're headed.

 

[The Oz]

I have Battle Rider, and yes, there's some elements of it I like. It's a very good game and deserves more recognition than it has gotten. Battle Rider is what I would use to build a fleet-level TRAVELLER minatures game, if we had TRAVELLER warship minis to use.

And I agree that tracking only critical hits is a good way to handle ship-killing damage, but in the world of Battle Rider (TNE) smaller weapons (HG bay and turret weapons) can score critical hits on the largest of ships, which is not the case in strict HG combat.

Right now I'm trying to work towards a modification of the FFW system that allows the use of HG-designed ships and gives combat options and results that are more like those of strict HG combat. I am also trying to make sure that this system can be used with the existing FFW game and counters, for those people who might end up liking the combat system but can't or don't want to make up their own fleets.

 

[The Oz]

I have Battle Rider, and yes, there's some elements of it I like. It's a very good game and deserves more recognition than it has gotten. Battle Rider is what I would use to build a fleet-level TRAVELLER minatures game, if we had TRAVELLER warship minis to use.

And I agree that tracking only critical hits is a good way to handle ship-killing damage, but in the world of Battle Rider (TNE) smaller weapons (HG bay and turret weapons) can score critical hits on the largest of ships, which is not the case in strict HG combat.

Right now I'm trying to work towards a modification of the FFW system that allows the use of HG-designed ships and gives combat options and results that are more like those of strict HG combat. I am also trying to make sure that this system can be used with the existing FFW game and counters, for those people who might end up liking the combat system but can't or don't want to make up their own fleets.

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Sigg and I did quite a bit of discussion... . I can find a link if you're interested but it was a long thread with many side discussions.

Speaking of side discussions: I am an ex-naval nuke who has only been on this site a relativly short time compared to when this thread was first started and was reading the first part of this thread with interest. Now it's on sandcasters

I have to go to work shortly so I will finish reading the other 8 or so pages later and see if it gets back to fission power plants.
I has 2 comments on the fission discussion so far:
The USS Nimitz (I was on her commissioning crew) has a design life time of 20 years. It was intended that she would never be refuelled in that 20 years. (The USS Enterprise was refuled at 10 years, but I never heard what the design life of the first corewas supposed to be. I was stationed on her before I was reassigned to the Nimitz.)
I also worked for a civilian power company that had several nuclear plants. When stating the difference in fuel consumption rates in a previous entry someone said that civilian plants used fuel much faster. True, but also true of civilian plants is that they use fissionables that were not enriched nearly as much as the navy plants. Enrichment allows having a much smaller critical mass and therefore a smaller plant size per unit of output. It also makes the fuel cost more.

In summary I would use 10 years as a working lifetime at lower TLs and 20 years at higher TLs. Also pro rate the refueling cost per year as part of annual maintainence costs to simplify things.

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by The Oz:
Sigg and I did quite a bit of discussion... . I can find a link if you're interested but it was a long thread with many side discussions.

Speaking of side discussions: I am an ex-naval nuke who has only been on this site a relativly short time compared to when this thread was first started and was reading the first part of this thread with interest. Now it's on sandcasters

I have to go to work shortly so I will finish reading the other 8 or so pages later and see if it gets back to fission power plants.
I has 2 comments on the fission discussion so far:
The USS Nimitz (I was on her commissioning crew) has a design life time of 20 years. It was intended that she would never be refuelled in that 20 years. (The USS Enterprise was refuled at 10 years, but I never heard what the design life of the first corewas supposed to be. I was stationed on her before I was reassigned to the Nimitz.)
I also worked for a civilian power company that had several nuclear plants. When stating the difference in fuel consumption rates in a previous entry someone said that civilian plants used fuel much faster. True, but also true of civilian plants is that they use fissionables that were not enriched nearly as much as the navy plants. Enrichment allows having a much smaller critical mass and therefore a smaller plant size per unit of output. It also makes the fuel cost more.

In summary I would use 10 years as a working lifetime at lower TLs and 20 years at higher TLs. Also pro rate the refueling cost per year as part of annual maintainence costs to simplify things.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
Speaking of side discussions: I am an ex-naval nuke who hasn only been on this site a relativly short time compared to when this thread was first started and was reading the first part of this thread with interest. Now it's on sandcasters

Hello, fellow ex-nuke!

I served in the Eisenhower back in the mid-80's myself. I think Larsen is also a former nuke.

You'll find that topic drift is a common phenomenon here on CotI. You can always steer us back to what you want to talk about, though.

Or at least try to....

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
Speaking of side discussions: I am an ex-naval nuke who hasn only been on this site a relativly short time compared to when this thread was first started and was reading the first part of this thread with interest. Now it's on sandcasters

Hello, fellow ex-nuke!

I served in the Eisenhower back in the mid-80's myself. I think Larsen is also a former nuke.

You'll find that topic drift is a common phenomenon here on CotI. You can always steer us back to what you want to talk about, though.

Or at least try to....

 

[aramis]

I essentially use mayday with MT weapons rules.

Why? Scaleability and integratability. Something the T4 system's mechanics, nice tho they are, CAN'T do what I do with MT: Treat a squadron as an integrated unit, not having to keep damage separate, and not loosing the effects of armor disproportionately.

Penetration needs to be separate from damage....

 

[aramis]

I essentially use mayday with MT weapons rules.

Why? Scaleability and integratability. Something the T4 system's mechanics, nice tho they are, CAN'T do what I do with MT: Treat a squadron as an integrated unit, not having to keep damage separate, and not loosing the effects of armor disproportionately.

Penetration needs to be separate from damage....

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by The Oz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
Speaking of side discussions: I am an ex-naval nuke who hasn only been on this site a relativly short time compared to when this thread was first started and was reading the first part of this thread with interest. Now it's on sandcasters

Hello, fellow ex-nuke!

I served in the Eisenhower back in the mid-80's myself. I think Larsen is also a former nuke.

You'll find that topic drift is a common phenomenon here on CotI. You can always steer us back to what you want to talk about, though.

Or at least try to.... </font>[/QUOTE]As I seem to recall, the term frequently used was "Drifty nuke" and something about needing lead overshoes to keep from ding our skulls on the overhead.

BTW, Jeff Hopper is also an ex-nuke.
I got out in early '77 as an MM2. Left them a hit on the upcomming ORSE because I didn't care if I passed some of the cross rate junk for the pre-ORSE or annual re quals or some such. Don't realy remember the details that far back. I served on the Entercourse (Enterprise) and was pre-commissioning crew for the Nimwits (Nimitz).

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by The Oz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
Speaking of side discussions: I am an ex-naval nuke who hasn only been on this site a relativly short time compared to when this thread was first started and was reading the first part of this thread with interest. Now it's on sandcasters

Hello, fellow ex-nuke!

I served in the Eisenhower back in the mid-80's myself. I think Larsen is also a former nuke.

You'll find that topic drift is a common phenomenon here on CotI. You can always steer us back to what you want to talk about, though.

Or at least try to.... </font>[/QUOTE]As I seem to recall, the term frequently used was "Drifty nuke" and something about needing lead overshoes to keep from ding our skulls on the overhead.

BTW, Jeff Hopper is also an ex-nuke.
I got out in early '77 as an MM2. Left them a hit on the upcomming ORSE because I didn't care if I passed some of the cross rate junk for the pre-ORSE or annual re quals or some such. Don't realy remember the details that far back. I served on the Entercourse (Enterprise) and was pre-commissioning crew for the Nimwits (Nimitz).

 

[The Oz]

Has anyone ever seen any house rules to put bomb-pumped X-ray lasers into High Guard? I'm thinking of this because of how my recent calculations make missiles less valuable (thanks to repulsors).

I am thinking along the lines of a rule where you could fire a missile salvo as "X-ray laser warheads" which then cannot be stopped with repulsors or nuclear dampers as the missiles detonate their warheads outside the range of those defenses. They can only be stopped with sand (on the Beam table, using the same factor) and then they roll for damage just like pulse lasers of the same factor, maybe with a better modifier (-4, perhaps, rather than -2).

By taking repulsors and nuclear dampers out of the picture, this would increase the ability of lower-TL missiles to penetrate, but it would reduce their damage, both from the smaller damage modifer compared with regular nuclear missiles, and because they don't get a roll on the Radiation table, but at least more get through.

What do ya'll think?