High Guard 3

[mike wightman]

I've recently remembered this - prior to TCS, and later printings of High Guard, turret weapons (lasers, missiles and energy weapons) and bay missiles didn't subtract target agility from the to hit roll.
They were penalised with their +6 on the damage tables.

This made turret weapons and missiles a bit more effective.

I wonder if dropping this bit of errata may actually balance the game a bit more?

 

[daltoncalford]

We ended up rewriting most of our game mechanics. This is how we handled armor, size and weapons.

We made armor values relitive to the size of the ship. Weapon values were also rated relitive to the size of the ship. No value could be higher than 15. Ship sizes are based on a factor of 10 so a size 0 ship is under one displacement ton, a size 1 ship is 1-10 tonnes, size 2 is 11 to 100 tonnes, while a size 3 ship is up to 1000 displacement tons. A million displacement ton vessel is only size 7.

Since 7 is the average number on a 2d6 bell curve, we started there. A ship with a factor 7 weapon facing a factor 7 defense would have (roughly) 50% chance for a kill shot as long as both ships are the same size.

For every factor above or below, chances change (I am not going to go into specifics unless asked).

For every size difference, the weapon or defense factor increases or decreases by a factor of 5.

10 ships of a smaller size firing as a single battery/unit act as one size larger.

Ships mount batteries in smaller factors but large numbers to combat small craft.
(the one displacement ton hardpoint is to cater to the point defense size of weapons)

Whole squadrons of ships can be combined into a single stat-line. We do this so that the mechanics for a battle between two small vessels or hundreds of world destroyers use the same game mechanics.

By isolating game specifications from physical properties allow us to generate stats for ships designed from any of the Traveller versions.

Best regards

Dalton

 

[daltoncalford]

We ended up rewriting most of our game mechanics. This is how we handled armor, size and weapons.

We made armor values relitive to the size of the ship. Weapon values were also rated relitive to the size of the ship. No value could be higher than 15. Ship sizes are based on a factor of 10 so a size 0 ship is under one displacement ton, a size 1 ship is 1-10 tonnes, size 2 is 11 to 100 tonnes, while a size 3 ship is up to 1000 displacement tons. A million displacement ton vessel is only size 7.

Since 7 is the average number on a 2d6 bell curve, we started there. A ship with a factor 7 weapon facing a factor 7 defense would have (roughly) 50% chance for a kill shot as long as both ships are the same size.

For every factor above or below, chances change (I am not going to go into specifics unless asked).

For every size difference, the weapon or defense factor increases or decreases by a factor of 5.

10 ships of a smaller size firing as a single battery/unit act as one size larger.

Ships mount batteries in smaller factors but large numbers to combat small craft.
(the one displacement ton hardpoint is to cater to the point defense size of weapons)

Whole squadrons of ships can be combined into a single stat-line. We do this so that the mechanics for a battle between two small vessels or hundreds of world destroyers use the same game mechanics.

By isolating game specifications from physical properties allow us to generate stats for ships designed from any of the Traveller versions.

Best regards

Dalton

 

[robject]

I extended the Traveller ship size code paradigm to include vehicles. Dalton, maybe you didn't know about this system?

Ships 100-999 tons are size 8
1000-9999 tons are size 9

Size 12 (size code C) are million-tonners.

So,
10-99 tons are size 7 (small craft)
1-9 tons are size 6 (vehicles)
0.1-0.9 tons are size 5 (battledress; person-sized up to closet size)

And so,
Size 4 would be the size of a firearm.
Size 3 would be the size of a cartridge.
Size 2 would be the size of a bullet.
Size 1 would be the size of something 10% of the size of a bullet I guess.
Size 0 would be 10% of that.

I also had thought about weapon factors somehow matching ship size factors, and being able to group them into larger factor batteries for better effect.

But it's still hard to scale them... for example, it's better to fire ten factor 7 guns than to fire one factor 8 gun. How do you make a factor 8 gun ten times more effective if it only gets a +1 difference to hit? Make it 10x more devastating, I suppose?

Perhaps the weapon factor also acts as a +1 on a damage table as well. Can a +1 make all that much difference?

There also may be some granularity lost. For example, there might not be a tradeoff anymore between fitting your craft with a slew of fixed-emplacement lasers versus a few turrets and a big honking spinal weapon: at the squadron level, they're all combined into one number, which may or may not reflect the firepower of the ship.

But then, you'll probably have a different stat for each weapon type -- laser, PA, meson, missile -- to differentiate penetration vs damage, or some such thing. Or just have an offense and defense value. I seem to remember doing something like that for squadron- and higher- level encounters: just about the only weapon that counts in fleet elements is the spinal weapon.

A related potential problem is how armor works. If small guns have no effect whatsoever on armor, then no amount of small guns will have any effect on the armor. Perhaps they just don't have the pen.

 

[robject]

I extended the Traveller ship size code paradigm to include vehicles. Dalton, maybe you didn't know about this system?

Ships 100-999 tons are size 8
1000-9999 tons are size 9

Size 12 (size code C) are million-tonners.

So,
10-99 tons are size 7 (small craft)
1-9 tons are size 6 (vehicles)
0.1-0.9 tons are size 5 (battledress; person-sized up to closet size)

And so,
Size 4 would be the size of a firearm.
Size 3 would be the size of a cartridge.
Size 2 would be the size of a bullet.
Size 1 would be the size of something 10% of the size of a bullet I guess.
Size 0 would be 10% of that.

I also had thought about weapon factors somehow matching ship size factors, and being able to group them into larger factor batteries for better effect.

But it's still hard to scale them... for example, it's better to fire ten factor 7 guns than to fire one factor 8 gun. How do you make a factor 8 gun ten times more effective if it only gets a +1 difference to hit? Make it 10x more devastating, I suppose?

Perhaps the weapon factor also acts as a +1 on a damage table as well. Can a +1 make all that much difference?

There also may be some granularity lost. For example, there might not be a tradeoff anymore between fitting your craft with a slew of fixed-emplacement lasers versus a few turrets and a big honking spinal weapon: at the squadron level, they're all combined into one number, which may or may not reflect the firepower of the ship.

But then, you'll probably have a different stat for each weapon type -- laser, PA, meson, missile -- to differentiate penetration vs damage, or some such thing. Or just have an offense and defense value. I seem to remember doing something like that for squadron- and higher- level encounters: just about the only weapon that counts in fleet elements is the spinal weapon.

A related potential problem is how armor works. If small guns have no effect whatsoever on armor, then no amount of small guns will have any effect on the armor. Perhaps they just don't have the pen.

 

[daltoncalford]

Hi Robject,

No, never seen alot of your stuff since I only bounce in and out of the forums every couple of days. Do you have a central repository of stuff that I can look at?

When I first got our little group together, I did not give alot of thought to size differences as I did not have the time. When you are designing a full rule set, as you play, with new players demanding most of your attention, simplicity was the order of the day.....

Later, when I was teaching the system to the people who wanted to start their own game groups, I tried to explain Travellers size system (glossy eyed looks all around). I then tried to shoe-horn in the CODA size ideas, but that seemed to be far too much detail.

I wanted the size rules to be quick, simple yet cover the level of detail our group wanted.

So, here is my thinking.(muddled as it is)

1.) Most players deal with things on 'human' scale. Sometimes they need to look at things from a small vehicle to large vehicle scale. Rarely, they will need to key the paint on a starship with their new plasma cannon.
Now, that is 0 for human relative, 1 for small vehicle relative, and 2 for large vehicles. Most player starship battles will be between vessels ranging from size 2 or 3. That means that I don't have to consult a chart or have lists of modifiers due to incremental size differences.

This system also allowed us to scale up to fighting squadron to squadron battles with the small moon sized death star or 5 mile long space station thrown in to boot.

The weapon factor system is based upon the assumption that a average sized weapon for that size class is designed to destroy an equally size opponent. Average armour reduces the chance for a kill shot from a average weapon to 50%. A kill shot is assumed to be a critical hit.
Lesser weapons incrementally hurt the target vessel, and are common in civilian and police vessels. Heavier weapons (factor 8 or above) are military grade designed to increase the odds of a kill shot. A size 2 fighter with a factor 12 laser, acts like a size 3 ship with a factor 7 laser. Against a size 4 ship, it acts like a factor 2 laser. Ten such fighters can attack a size 5 ship (up to 100000 displacement tons) with a strength 2 laser attack.

Different weapons have different counter measures. No one single counter measure is good against all weapons. Large numbers of small weapons (factor 0) on large ships (size 5) attack small craft with strengths of 5, 10 or 15 depending upon the size difference. But, a factor 15 shot against a fighter will still only take out one fighter. Against 100 fighters, you need a hundred or more small weapons.

All vessels have a rating for hits. It is broken down into stages. As a stage is passed in incremental damage, it becomes easier to cause a critical on the ship. Player die rolls are also affected by the damage stage to represent failing systems and distractions.

It works for us, as we can fight out most battles in under an hour, while talking, drinking and of course, trash talking our opponents.....

best regards

Dalton

 

[daltoncalford]

Hi Robject,

No, never seen alot of your stuff since I only bounce in and out of the forums every couple of days. Do you have a central repository of stuff that I can look at?

When I first got our little group together, I did not give alot of thought to size differences as I did not have the time. When you are designing a full rule set, as you play, with new players demanding most of your attention, simplicity was the order of the day.....

Later, when I was teaching the system to the people who wanted to start their own game groups, I tried to explain Travellers size system (glossy eyed looks all around). I then tried to shoe-horn in the CODA size ideas, but that seemed to be far too much detail.

I wanted the size rules to be quick, simple yet cover the level of detail our group wanted.

So, here is my thinking.(muddled as it is)

1.) Most players deal with things on 'human' scale. Sometimes they need to look at things from a small vehicle to large vehicle scale. Rarely, they will need to key the paint on a starship with their new plasma cannon.
Now, that is 0 for human relative, 1 for small vehicle relative, and 2 for large vehicles. Most player starship battles will be between vessels ranging from size 2 or 3. That means that I don't have to consult a chart or have lists of modifiers due to incremental size differences.

This system also allowed us to scale up to fighting squadron to squadron battles with the small moon sized death star or 5 mile long space station thrown in to boot.

The weapon factor system is based upon the assumption that a average sized weapon for that size class is designed to destroy an equally size opponent. Average armour reduces the chance for a kill shot from a average weapon to 50%. A kill shot is assumed to be a critical hit.
Lesser weapons incrementally hurt the target vessel, and are common in civilian and police vessels. Heavier weapons (factor 8 or above) are military grade designed to increase the odds of a kill shot. A size 2 fighter with a factor 12 laser, acts like a size 3 ship with a factor 7 laser. Against a size 4 ship, it acts like a factor 2 laser. Ten such fighters can attack a size 5 ship (up to 100000 displacement tons) with a strength 2 laser attack.

Different weapons have different counter measures. No one single counter measure is good against all weapons. Large numbers of small weapons (factor 0) on large ships (size 5) attack small craft with strengths of 5, 10 or 15 depending upon the size difference. But, a factor 15 shot against a fighter will still only take out one fighter. Against 100 fighters, you need a hundred or more small weapons.

All vessels have a rating for hits. It is broken down into stages. As a stage is passed in incremental damage, it becomes easier to cause a critical on the ship. Player die rolls are also affected by the damage stage to represent failing systems and distractions.

It works for us, as we can fight out most battles in under an hour, while talking, drinking and of course, trash talking our opponents.....

best regards

Dalton

 

[aramis]

Armor tonnage can be worked out "realistically" instead of the current formula. This makes it harder for small craft, and easier for large craft. (HGAV0 is roughly 33cm of steel)

((Tons * 14)^(2/3))/(3*14)
((tons^(2/3))*(14^(2/3)))/42
(tons^(2/3))*(5.81)/42
(tons^(2/3))*0.1383

this gives a hull shell 0.33m thick, the steel equivalent (based upon MT and Striker) for HG AF0. I'd divid

This is before TL Effects. Simple method: divide by Armor TL, rather than by 7. This makes it memorable, and the only glitch is the two-thirds power.

Here's a chart for this suggestion.
10 4.64/TL
15 6.08/TL
20 7.37/TL
25 8.55/TL
30 9.65/TL
35 10.7/TL
40 11.7/TL
45 12.65/TL
50 13.57/TL
55 14.46/TL
60 15.33/TL
65 16.17/TL
70 16.98/TL
75 17.78/TL
80 18.57/TL
85 19.33/TL
90 20.08/TL
95 20.82/TL
100 21.54/TL
125 25/TL
150 28.23/TL
175 31.29/TL
200 34.2/TL
225 36.99/TL
250 39.69/TL
300 44.81/TL
400 54.29/TL
500 63/TL
600 71.14/TL
700 78.84/TL
800 86.18/TL
900 93.22/TL
1000 100/TL
1500 131.04/TL
2000 158.74/TL
2500 184.2/TL
3000 208.01/TL
3500 230.52/TL
4000 251.98/TL
4500 272.57/TL

 

[aramis]

Armor tonnage can be worked out "realistically" instead of the current formula. This makes it harder for small craft, and easier for large craft. (HGAV0 is roughly 33cm of steel)

((Tons * 14)^(2/3))/(3*14)
((tons^(2/3))*(14^(2/3)))/42
(tons^(2/3))*(5.81)/42
(tons^(2/3))*0.1383

this gives a hull shell 0.33m thick, the steel equivalent (based upon MT and Striker) for HG AF0. I'd divid

This is before TL Effects. Simple method: divide by Armor TL, rather than by 7. This makes it memorable, and the only glitch is the two-thirds power.

Here's a chart for this suggestion.
10 4.64/TL
15 6.08/TL
20 7.37/TL
25 8.55/TL
30 9.65/TL
35 10.7/TL
40 11.7/TL
45 12.65/TL
50 13.57/TL
55 14.46/TL
60 15.33/TL
65 16.17/TL
70 16.98/TL
75 17.78/TL
80 18.57/TL
85 19.33/TL
90 20.08/TL
95 20.82/TL
100 21.54/TL
125 25/TL
150 28.23/TL
175 31.29/TL
200 34.2/TL
225 36.99/TL
250 39.69/TL
300 44.81/TL
400 54.29/TL
500 63/TL
600 71.14/TL
700 78.84/TL
800 86.18/TL
900 93.22/TL
1000 100/TL
1500 131.04/TL
2000 158.74/TL
2500 184.2/TL
3000 208.01/TL
3500 230.52/TL
4000 251.98/TL
4500 272.57/TL

 

[The Oz]

I can see you're driving at something, Aramis, but I can't quite figure out what your post means.

Could you please take it one step at a time so I have a better chance of following where you're going?

 

[The Oz]

I can see you're driving at something, Aramis, but I can't quite figure out what your post means.

Could you please take it one step at a time so I have a better chance of following where you're going?

 

[aramis]

I'm driving at a "realistic" armor solution. Since HG AV0 is 33cm of steel, or equivalent, and the other AV's are considerably more each, using a simplification to AV= multiples of 33cm steel-equivalent.
It means that
</font>

• Smaller ships won't be able to carry much armor</font>
• Big ships will carry more</font>
• meson guns become the queen of battle; armor only makes the internal damage less visible!</font>
• With a formula or a table one can easily build this out.</font>

That being said, the issue should be one that any ship can hurt any ship, but it is unlikely a small, lightly armed ship will hurt a huge and heavily armored one.

I like the MT scaleable system overall, but it is cumbersome. THE MT HG variant sucks as badly as HG.

When I do run CT as CT, rather than as Setting for MT Rules, I use 1d penetration rolls.
Roll to pen is 1d for greater than AV. If individual weapon has UCP greater than 1, additional UCP is damage AND Pen mod.

 

[aramis]

I'm driving at a "realistic" armor solution. Since HG AV0 is 33cm of steel, or equivalent, and the other AV's are considerably more each, using a simplification to AV= multiples of 33cm steel-equivalent.
It means that
</font>

• Smaller ships won't be able to carry much armor</font>
• Big ships will carry more</font>
• meson guns become the queen of battle; armor only makes the internal damage less visible!</font>
• With a formula or a table one can easily build this out.</font>

That being said, the issue should be one that any ship can hurt any ship, but it is unlikely a small, lightly armed ship will hurt a huge and heavily armored one.

I like the MT scaleable system overall, but it is cumbersome. THE MT HG variant sucks as badly as HG.

When I do run CT as CT, rather than as Setting for MT Rules, I use 1d penetration rolls.
Roll to pen is 1d for greater than AV. If individual weapon has UCP greater than 1, additional UCP is damage AND Pen mod.

 

[robject]

I like the MT armor concept too, but I'm also drawn trance-like to the FFS armor rules.

Dividing by TL is a big win, I think, because it is very easy to remember.

 

[robject]

I like the MT armor concept too, but I'm also drawn trance-like to the FFS armor rules.

Dividing by TL is a big win, I think, because it is very easy to remember.

 

[The Oz]

I've always wanted to have some kind of modifier for armor based on the ship's configuration, with the idea that smaller, more compact configurations (sphere, flattened sphere, close structure, planetoid) would get more protection from the same volume of armor than other configurations.

Of course, those same compact configurations are also the most vulnerable to meson guns, which ignore armor....

 

[The Oz]

I've always wanted to have some kind of modifier for armor based on the ship's configuration, with the idea that smaller, more compact configurations (sphere, flattened sphere, close structure, planetoid) would get more protection from the same volume of armor than other configurations.

Of course, those same compact configurations are also the most vulnerable to meson guns, which ignore armor....

 

[aramis]

Resist, Robject, Resist the call of the Dark Side!

Seriously, my above proposal can be used with either style of armor mechanic. You can even factor in hull forms (use the hull form cost multiplier) easily enough.

I'd suggest a cost of MCr=(TL^2)/10 per ton.

 

[aramis]

Resist, Robject, Resist the call of the Dark Side!

Seriously, my above proposal can be used with either style of armor mechanic. You can even factor in hull forms (use the hull form cost multiplier) easily enough.

I'd suggest a cost of MCr=(TL^2)/10 per ton.

 

[robject]

I'm also drawn to a simplified version of FFS armoring rules, with the given caveats:

(1) At the stated TL, starship hulls have inherent armor based on the materials technology of that TL. Similarly for smaller craft. In other words, you don't need to worry about armor volume calculation until you want to up-armor your ship.

(2) To simplify things (?), armor is added in percentages of hull volume, with a factor increase based on the hull material. I suppose.

(3) To simplify things further, a ship has a "mass allowance" equal to 10% of its hull volume in tonnes (is 10% too small?). Tables only list values to be noted against the mass allowance; for every multiple for which that value is exceeded, ship agility or maneuver (or whatever) degrades by 1.


Follow up with some fancy hull materials table (accessorize, accessorize...), and voila, you've got... something or other. Maybe nice, maybe not.

Caution! SWAG table follows.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Unit volume of armor = 1% hull volume
Toughness = AF increase per % hull volume
Mass = tonnes toward mass allowance per displacement ton of armor
Base (free) starship armor = 2 x Toughness
Base (free) small craft armor = 1 x Toughness
Base (free) vehicle armor = Toughness/2

Material Mass Toughness MCr/ton

Laminate/7 8 2 4
Ceramic/8 4 6 6
Crystalliron/A 3 10 8
Superdense/C 1 20 10
Hullmetal/G 2 40 100

Example: Joe Darrian builds a TL16 200t trader 50
years before the Maghiz.
Its base armor is 80 (2 x TL16 toughness).
Its mass allowance is 20 (200 tons/10).
He decides to add two units of armor,
bringing the armor value up to 160.
This displaces 4 tons, costs MCr400, and
adds 8 mass-tons to the ship's mass allowance.

Joe decides that Hullmetal is too expensive, but
it sure is effective.</pre>[/QUOTE]For some reason, I prefer to take a more fiddly route where one can pick and choose between various materials, with a tradeoff of toughness and mass (or whatever those two qualities are) depending on the nature of your vehicle, a la FFSx. Although mass is always a problem if you're like me and don't use mass calculations...

I like the idea of Agility, but except for High Guard I think it's not a meaningful term. However, it sounds like a nice stat for a starship UPP.


After all this, there needs to be a mapping of armor to weapon penetration or whatever. In other words, if a typical TL12 trader has an armor factor of 40, then the typical TL12 laser has to have a penetration value of somewhere around 40. And if you're playing MegaTraveller, it has to have a greater pen than that, I think.


You know, it might be nice to tie armor values to laser ratings at normal range... in other words, a rating 40 laser can penetrate factor 40 armor. That might scale nicely.