High Guard 3

[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?

 

[mike wightman]

Looks good.
Just to make sure I'm reading this right, a factor 9 missile bay firing bpms would need a 2 to hit and a 6 to penetrate a factor 9 sandcaster battery.
I'd also get rid of the missile -1 at short range to hit modifier for bomb-pumped missiles.

 

[mike wightman]

Looks good.
Just to make sure I'm reading this right, a factor 9 missile bay firing bpms would need a 2 to hit and a 6 to penetrate a factor 9 sandcaster battery.
I'd also get rid of the missile -1 at short range to hit modifier for bomb-pumped missiles.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

It would be particularly effective if you could get the missile inside sandcaster defense, but outside the nuc-damper field!

 

[Fritz_Brown]

It would be particularly effective if you could get the missile inside sandcaster defense, but outside the nuc-damper field!

 

[hcobb]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I'd also get rid of the missile -1 at short range to hit modifier for bomb-pumped missiles.

Yeah, it should be much harder to get the proper standoff range so you don't nuke yourself when you're standing nose to nose with the target.

A -4 at least.

-HJC

 

[hcobb]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
I'd also get rid of the missile -1 at short range to hit modifier for bomb-pumped missiles.

Yeah, it should be much harder to get the proper standoff range so you don't nuke yourself when you're standing nose to nose with the target.

A -4 at least.

-HJC

 

[mike wightman]

Emm, short range in High Guard is 5 light seconds.
I doubt that you'd have to worry about nuking yourself

 

[mike wightman]

Emm, short range in High Guard is 5 light seconds.
I doubt that you'd have to worry about nuking yourself

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Your missiles wouldn't be short range, but your lasers would be.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Your missiles wouldn't be short range, but your lasers would be.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Looks good.
Just to make sure I'm reading this right, a factor 9 missile bay firing bpms would need a 2 to hit and a 6 to penetrate a factor 9 sandcaster battery.
I'd also get rid of the missile -1 at short range to hit modifier for bomb-pumped missiles.

Yes, that's how I'd read it, Sigg.

And you're right: BPMs would not have the -1 to Hit that missiles have at short range, and they wouldn't have the -1 that lasers have at long range, either.

Should there be a TL of introduction for BPMs? If so, what? In theory we could build them now, in reality it takes better manufacturing than we have to produce them in a combat-useable form. Perhaps at TL9 or TL10?

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Looks good.
Just to make sure I'm reading this right, a factor 9 missile bay firing bpms would need a 2 to hit and a 6 to penetrate a factor 9 sandcaster battery.
I'd also get rid of the missile -1 at short range to hit modifier for bomb-pumped missiles.

Yes, that's how I'd read it, Sigg.

And you're right: BPMs would not have the -1 to Hit that missiles have at short range, and they wouldn't have the -1 that lasers have at long range, either.

Should there be a TL of introduction for BPMs? If so, what? In theory we could build them now, in reality it takes better manufacturing than we have to produce them in a combat-useable form. Perhaps at TL9 or TL10?

 

[mike wightman]

I'd make them TL10 and only for bay launchers.

 

[mike wightman]

I'd make them TL10 and only for bay launchers.

 

[The Oz]

I agree with that, Sigg: bay launchers only.

TL 10 sounds good for introduction.

 

[The Oz]

I agree with that, Sigg: bay launchers only.

TL 10 sounds good for introduction.

 

[aramis]

I'd put BPL's available in Turrets at TL 12, Bays at TL 9. (We think we can do them now, but we can't test them due to treaties....)

 

[aramis]

I'd put BPL's available in Turrets at TL 12, Bays at TL 9. (We think we can do them now, but we can't test them due to treaties....)

 

[mike wightman]

Everything I've read about them in the real world says they don't work, which is why I thought the extra TL would help sort out the problems

Turret versions at higher TLs is not a bad idea, although I'd pick TL13+ since this is where missiles get their +1 mod due to TL in HG/MT/T20.