High Guard 3
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Here's a thought - why can't the extended USP be on more than one line?
AA - 0000000-0
0000-00-00
00-00-00-000-000-000
ship type AA - tonnage, config, jump, maneuver, power plant, computer, crew - fighter squadrons
hull armour, meson screen, nuclear damper,force field - sandcaster turrets, sandcaster bays - repulsor turrets, repulsor bays
laser turrets, laser bays - energy weapon turrets, energy weapon bays - missile turrets, missile bays - PAW turrets, PAW bays, PAW spinal - meson turrets, meson bays, meson spinal - disintegrator turrets, disintegrator bays, disintegrator spinal
AA - 0000000-0
0000-00-00
00-00-00-000-000-000
ship type AA - tonnage, config, jump, maneuver, power plant, computer, crew - fighter squadrons
hull armour, meson screen, nuclear damper,force field - sandcaster turrets, sandcaster bays - repulsor turrets, repulsor bays
laser turrets, laser bays - energy weapon turrets, energy weapon bays - missile turrets, missile bays - PAW turrets, PAW bays, PAW spinal - meson turrets, meson bays, meson spinal - disintegrator turrets, disintegrator bays, disintegrator spinal
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Here's a thought - why can't the extended USP be on more than one line?
AA - 0000000-0
0000-00-00
00-00-00-000-000-000
ship type AA - tonnage, config, jump, maneuver, power plant, computer, crew - fighter squadrons
hull armour, meson screen, nuclear damper,force field - sandcaster turrets, sandcaster bays - repulsor turrets, repulsor bays
laser turrets, laser bays - energy weapon turrets, energy weapon bays - missile turrets, missile bays - PAW turrets, PAW bays, PAW spinal - meson turrets, meson bays, meson spinal - disintegrator turrets, disintegrator bays, disintegrator spinal
AA - 0000000-0
0000-00-00
00-00-00-000-000-000
ship type AA - tonnage, config, jump, maneuver, power plant, computer, crew - fighter squadrons
hull armour, meson screen, nuclear damper,force field - sandcaster turrets, sandcaster bays - repulsor turrets, repulsor bays
laser turrets, laser bays - energy weapon turrets, energy weapon bays - missile turrets, missile bays - PAW turrets, PAW bays, PAW spinal - meson turrets, meson bays, meson spinal - disintegrator turrets, disintegrator bays, disintegrator spinal
Ptah, IMHO, the point-defense is not needed, The "turret" are already so small, they can function within that role. Perhaps require software and dedication to that role, though.
Sigg, Since we agreed to go with differentiating the mounting system, I go along with the idea of expanding the USP to denote that. I do think we need to "KISS" (Keep It Simple Simple).
Let me throw this out:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">AA-0000000-111111-2222-33333-44-555
6666-66666-66</pre>[/QUOTE]Where groups 0000000 and 111111 is HG2;
group 2222 is laser-energy-paw-missle turrets;
group 33333 is laser-energy-paw-meson-missle bays;
group 44 is paw-meson spinals;
group 555 is fighter-attack-support smallcraft
group 6666-66666-66 are DM for the weapons due to "combat load" software. This latter row brings back the LBB2 concept of the software load being important in combat as opposed to HG's general DM.
Also an alternative to group 0000000 could be
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">0000011-2
ff</pre>[/QUOTE]where the 11 replaces the extant computer code by cpu-storage and the presence of 'f' indicates fibre backup. Subgroup 2 isolates the crew factor for clarity.
Final Revised USP like this:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">AA-0000000-0-111111-2222-33333-44-555
ff 6666-66666-66</pre>[/QUOTE]
Ptah, IMHO, the point-defense is not needed, The "turret" are already so small, they can function within that role. Perhaps require software and dedication to that role, though.
Sigg, Since we agreed to go with differentiating the mounting system, I go along with the idea of expanding the USP to denote that. I do think we need to "KISS" (Keep It Simple Simple).
Let me throw this out:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">AA-0000000-111111-2222-33333-44-555
6666-66666-66</pre>[/QUOTE]Where groups 0000000 and 111111 is HG2;
group 2222 is laser-energy-paw-missle turrets;
group 33333 is laser-energy-paw-meson-missle bays;
group 44 is paw-meson spinals;
group 555 is fighter-attack-support smallcraft
group 6666-66666-66 are DM for the weapons due to "combat load" software. This latter row brings back the LBB2 concept of the software load being important in combat as opposed to HG's general DM.
Also an alternative to group 0000000 could be
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">0000011-2
ff</pre>[/QUOTE]where the 11 replaces the extant computer code by cpu-storage and the presence of 'f' indicates fibre backup. Subgroup 2 isolates the crew factor for clarity.
Final Revised USP like this:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">AA-0000000-0-111111-2222-33333-44-555
ff 6666-66666-66</pre>[/QUOTE]
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Here are some of the house rules for High Guard that have come up from time to time:
Allow large ships to treat spinal mounts as "turrets/bays" and carry more such weapons. Basically, if the ship is 100 times larger than the weapon, the weapon can be carried as a "turret." So a 100kton BC can carry 1kton spinals as turrets, 200kton BBs can carry 2kton spinal "turrets," and a 500kton Tigress could carry 5kton factor-R spinals as "turrets." (The Oz)
Nuclear missiles damage as spinal mounts, e.g. a factor 1 nuke is the equivalent of an A class spinal PA, while a factor 9 nuke is the equivalent of an J class spinal PA for damage effects (mine)
Meson screens as internal armour to reduce the number of hits from a small/medium meson gun - the big ones will still kill ships (The Oz)
Remove the +6DM on the damage table for all bay mounted weapons (has come up a few times)
Scaling the number of hits needed to reduce jump drive, maneuver drive and power plant by one factor so that bigger ship's drives last longer than smaller ship's drives. As the rules are currently written, one hit reduces a drive by one factor, regardless of how big that drive might actually be (mine)
Internal armour to reduce the number of meson hits (RainofSteel)
Black Globes only affect incoming fire (has come up a few times)
Allow large ships to treat spinal mounts as "turrets/bays" and carry more such weapons. Basically, if the ship is 100 times larger than the weapon, the weapon can be carried as a "turret." So a 100kton BC can carry 1kton spinals as turrets, 200kton BBs can carry 2kton spinal "turrets," and a 500kton Tigress could carry 5kton factor-R spinals as "turrets." (The Oz)
Nuclear missiles damage as spinal mounts, e.g. a factor 1 nuke is the equivalent of an A class spinal PA, while a factor 9 nuke is the equivalent of an J class spinal PA for damage effects (mine)
Meson screens as internal armour to reduce the number of hits from a small/medium meson gun - the big ones will still kill ships (The Oz)
Remove the +6DM on the damage table for all bay mounted weapons (has come up a few times)
Scaling the number of hits needed to reduce jump drive, maneuver drive and power plant by one factor so that bigger ship's drives last longer than smaller ship's drives. As the rules are currently written, one hit reduces a drive by one factor, regardless of how big that drive might actually be (mine)
Internal armour to reduce the number of meson hits (RainofSteel)
Black Globes only affect incoming fire (has come up a few times)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Here are some of the house rules for High Guard that have come up from time to time:
Allow large ships to treat spinal mounts as "turrets/bays" and carry more such weapons. Basically, if the ship is 100 times larger than the weapon, the weapon can be carried as a "turret." So a 100kton BC can carry 1kton spinals as turrets, 200kton BBs can carry 2kton spinal "turrets," and a 500kton Tigress could carry 5kton factor-R spinals as "turrets." (The Oz)
Nuclear missiles damage as spinal mounts, e.g. a factor 1 nuke is the equivalent of an A class spinal PA, while a factor 9 nuke is the equivalent of an J class spinal PA for damage effects (mine)
Meson screens as internal armour to reduce the number of hits from a small/medium meson gun - the big ones will still kill ships (The Oz)
Remove the +6DM on the damage table for all bay mounted weapons (has come up a few times)
Scaling the number of hits needed to reduce jump drive, maneuver drive and power plant by one factor so that bigger ship's drives last longer than smaller ship's drives. As the rules are currently written, one hit reduces a drive by one factor, regardless of how big that drive might actually be (mine)
Internal armour to reduce the number of meson hits (RainofSteel)
Black Globes only affect incoming fire (has come up a few times)
Allow large ships to treat spinal mounts as "turrets/bays" and carry more such weapons. Basically, if the ship is 100 times larger than the weapon, the weapon can be carried as a "turret." So a 100kton BC can carry 1kton spinals as turrets, 200kton BBs can carry 2kton spinal "turrets," and a 500kton Tigress could carry 5kton factor-R spinals as "turrets." (The Oz)
Nuclear missiles damage as spinal mounts, e.g. a factor 1 nuke is the equivalent of an A class spinal PA, while a factor 9 nuke is the equivalent of an J class spinal PA for damage effects (mine)
Meson screens as internal armour to reduce the number of hits from a small/medium meson gun - the big ones will still kill ships (The Oz)
Remove the +6DM on the damage table for all bay mounted weapons (has come up a few times)
Scaling the number of hits needed to reduce jump drive, maneuver drive and power plant by one factor so that bigger ship's drives last longer than smaller ship's drives. As the rules are currently written, one hit reduces a drive by one factor, regardless of how big that drive might actually be (mine)
Internal armour to reduce the number of meson hits (RainofSteel)
Black Globes only affect incoming fire (has come up a few times)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Bill, don't forget meson turrets, disintegrator weapons, bay mounted sandcasters, and turret mounted repulsors 
My way is based on the MT way of keeping the same weapon types together, yours keeps the same weapon mounts together...
I like these bits a lot:
My way is based on the MT way of keeping the same weapon types together, yours keeps the same weapon mounts together...
I like these bits a lot:
the latter would require a reworking of the relative computer size DM that is all important in High Guard.
where the 11 replaces the extant computer code by cpu-storage and the presence of 'f' indicates fibre backup. Subgroup 2 isolates the crew factor for clarity.[/quote]I like these ideas too
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Bill, don't forget meson turrets, disintegrator weapons, bay mounted sandcasters, and turret mounted repulsors
My way is based on the MT way of keeping the same weapon types together, yours keeps the same weapon mounts together...
I like these bits a lot:
My way is based on the MT way of keeping the same weapon types together, yours keeps the same weapon mounts together...
I like these bits a lot:
the latter would require a reworking of the relative computer size DM that is all important in High Guard.
where the 11 replaces the extant computer code by cpu-storage and the presence of 'f' indicates fibre backup. Subgroup 2 isolates the crew factor for clarity.[/quote]I like these ideas too
Why don't we agree on the code layout before going into the rules?
Actually, I split out the mounting system precisely because we had agreed on the mounting system having DMs based on target size. I feel that having turrets, bays, then spinals broken out will make it easier to know when to apply the DMs.
As for the weapons, we can have the turrets and bays for all weapon types in the same order, just to make it easier. BTW, where did disintegrators come from? They're not in my HG; is that something from MT or TNE?
Actually, I split out the mounting system precisely because we had agreed on the mounting system having DMs based on target size. I feel that having turrets, bays, then spinals broken out will make it easier to know when to apply the DMs.
As for the weapons, we can have the turrets and bays for all weapon types in the same order, just to make it easier. BTW, where did disintegrators come from? They're not in my HG; is that something from MT or TNE?
Why don't we agree on the code layout before going into the rules?
Actually, I split out the mounting system precisely because we had agreed on the mounting system having DMs based on target size. I feel that having turrets, bays, then spinals broken out will make it easier to know when to apply the DMs.
As for the weapons, we can have the turrets and bays for all weapon types in the same order, just to make it easier. BTW, where did disintegrators come from? They're not in my HG; is that something from MT or TNE?
Actually, I split out the mounting system precisely because we had agreed on the mounting system having DMs based on target size. I feel that having turrets, bays, then spinals broken out will make it easier to know when to apply the DMs.
As for the weapons, we can have the turrets and bays for all weapon types in the same order, just to make it easier. BTW, where did disintegrators come from? They're not in my HG; is that something from MT or TNE?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I like my layout because I'm used to it, but your layout makes more sense.
As to disintegrators, they're from MT - which includes lots of other potential high TL add ons for High Guard. The repulsor/manipulator turret is from TNE and adapted across, while the meson turret appears in GT Starships.
As to disintegrators, they're from MT - which includes lots of other potential high TL add ons for High Guard. The repulsor/manipulator turret is from TNE and adapted across, while the meson turret appears in GT Starships.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I like my layout because I'm used to it, but your layout makes more sense.
As to disintegrators, they're from MT - which includes lots of other potential high TL add ons for High Guard. The repulsor/manipulator turret is from TNE and adapted across, while the meson turret appears in GT Starships.
As to disintegrators, they're from MT - which includes lots of other potential high TL add ons for High Guard. The repulsor/manipulator turret is from TNE and adapted across, while the meson turret appears in GT Starships.
Disintigrators are also mentioned in either HG or Striker. IIRC it is in a discussion that either meson or damper technology at higher TL leads to disintigrators. Which I understand to mean a weapon capable of suppressing the strong nuclear force.
Bill, Sigg, et al.
are you thinking of more along the lines of streamlining HG with some greater generalization of whay is a bay, spinal etc. weapon and/or some re-imagining of the weapons and screens? Also you seem to be re-working the mechanics somewhat, with LBB style computers. Although not a big fan of the program approach, I do very much like the modifier line approach. It has a nice general applicability, that is the modifier line approach could be used to represent a wide range of things. Age of ship, quality of crew, quality of weapon, etc.
Bill on your point about level of resolution, can't disagree with that, one thing I like about HG is the lower level of resolution. I guess for me the "point weapons" are where I like to give, but it also works with my own modified mechanics.
Disintigrators are also mentioned in either HG or Striker. IIRC it is in a discussion that either meson or damper technology at higher TL leads to disintigrators. Which I understand to mean a weapon capable of suppressing the strong nuclear force.
Bill, Sigg, et al.
are you thinking of more along the lines of streamlining HG with some greater generalization of whay is a bay, spinal etc. weapon and/or some re-imagining of the weapons and screens? Also you seem to be re-working the mechanics somewhat, with LBB style computers. Although not a big fan of the program approach, I do very much like the modifier line approach. It has a nice general applicability, that is the modifier line approach could be used to represent a wide range of things. Age of ship, quality of crew, quality of weapon, etc.
Bill on your point about level of resolution, can't disagree with that, one thing I like about HG is the lower level of resolution. I guess for me the "point weapons" are where I like to give, but it also works with my own modified mechanics.
P
Pickles
Guest
Disintegrators appear in the LBB3 tech level table (p.14) at TL16
P
Pickles
Guest
Disintegrators appear in the LBB3 tech level table (p.14) at TL16
A quick "semi-log" scaling that might be interesting for such.
The base formula is:
R(T) = (log T)^2 + mantissa (log T) - (mantissa (log T))^2
where T is a related to dtons in this case.
The above scale places R(100)=4, R(500)=7.5, R(1000)=9,... The scale has logrithmic steps at 100, 1000, 10000, etc. but scales lineraly in between steps. That is, P(100)=4 and P(1000)=9, T=500 is about half way in between 100 and 1000, so the formula was derived so R(500) falls about half way between R(100) and R(1000), that is at 7.5. I use this to provide some differnetiation between 100, 200, 400 etc. but to still compress the scale from 100 to 1,000,000 to the range 4-36.
The scale can be adapted to any size range by scaling T before it goes into the equation. One can also scale the value R to fit with Traveller's expanded hexadecimal notation.
Using the equation above R(10)=1; R(100)=4; R(1,000)=9; R(10,000)=16 or G; R(100,000)=25 or P; and R(1,000,000)=36 or got to work on this one but pretty close to Z.
For use in combat one idea is to use the second USP line under the drive etc. codes that indicates absolute size. If the weapon rating is greater than this code (which I'll call a component size rating), damage done is the number of hits indicated. If the weapon rating is less than this code there is only a chance the rating is reduced by 1 (the chance to damage). One idea on the chance to damage (CTD):
CTD = roll under 12 + weapon rating - component size rating on 2D6.
Special rules can be formulated for when CTD is less than 2 on 2D6.
