High Guard 3

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Here are some of the house rules for High Guard that have come up from time to time:

.......

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)
......

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.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by szurkey:
Ptah,

What I did was to calculate fair values for index values and then thread various curves through them until I a fit that I liked.

..snip..

Makes sense. I've tried something similiar, and got some of it to work, working with a spreadsheet and a vector/table of different inputs. Got an equation I liked for computers, scaling from wrist watch to starship IIRC. The difficulty of it made me rethink the idea of one equation. Nice to see it can work however.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by szurkey:
Ptah,

What I did was to calculate fair values for index values and then thread various curves through them until I a fit that I liked.

..snip..

Makes sense. I've tried something similiar, and got some of it to work, working with a spreadsheet and a vector/table of different inputs. Got an equation I liked for computers, scaling from wrist watch to starship IIRC. The difficulty of it made me rethink the idea of one equation. Nice to see it can work however.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Ptah:
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.

Thanks, I was wondering where they came from.

Originally posted by Ptah:
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?

Actually, this got started on another thread and I moved the discussion over here. The original proposal was to group bay weapons into batteries like turrets are. See my earlier post on page 11 (I think, maybe 10). Of course, this will create bay batteries with ratings up in the spinal mount range. To me, this makes sense in several ways; I don't particularly like spinal mounts as a concept for large ships. I fell that the reality would have very limited firing angles and the ship captains would be constantly trying to aim the whole freaking ship!

The computer just came about - I will state more on this in a later post.

Originally posted by Ptah:
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.

Is this about the point-defense topic? See, the existing turrets are extremely small. An Oto Melara 76mm/62 calibre mount has 2 parts - (1) a half-sphere about 3m diameter, with (2) a below decks housing about 3x3m that contains the rotation mechanism and reloading. That's 3 dtons for a single mount. The US Mk45 mount is larger - about 4.5m in place of the 3m. That works out to 6.5 to 7 dtons (more or less). A Phalanx install is about 2m square and close to 3m high.

But I'm starting to rant, so enough of that

Please contribute your thoughts.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Ptah:
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.

Thanks, I was wondering where they came from.

Originally posted by Ptah:
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?

Actually, this got started on another thread and I moved the discussion over here. The original proposal was to group bay weapons into batteries like turrets are. See my earlier post on page 11 (I think, maybe 10). Of course, this will create bay batteries with ratings up in the spinal mount range. To me, this makes sense in several ways; I don't particularly like spinal mounts as a concept for large ships. I fell that the reality would have very limited firing angles and the ship captains would be constantly trying to aim the whole freaking ship!

The computer just came about - I will state more on this in a later post.

Originally posted by Ptah:
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.

Is this about the point-defense topic? See, the existing turrets are extremely small. An Oto Melara 76mm/62 calibre mount has 2 parts - (1) a half-sphere about 3m diameter, with (2) a below decks housing about 3x3m that contains the rotation mechanism and reloading. That's 3 dtons for a single mount. The US Mk45 mount is larger - about 4.5m in place of the 3m. That works out to 6.5 to 7 dtons (more or less). A Phalanx install is about 2m square and close to 3m high.

But I'm starting to rant, so enough of that

Please contribute your thoughts.

 

[The Oz]

A little USP modification I've been playing with (to support Sigg's idea that drives of big ships shouldn't lose one USP factor for one hit) was to put the number of hits needed to reduce the drive USP by one on the line below the drive USP factor.

 

[The Oz]

A little USP modification I've been playing with (to support Sigg's idea that drives of big ships shouldn't lose one USP factor for one hit) was to put the number of hits needed to reduce the drive USP by one on the line below the drive USP factor.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by The Oz:
A little USP modification I've been playing with (to support Sigg's idea that drives of big ships shouldn't lose one USP factor for one hit) was to put the number of hits needed to reduce the drive USP by one on the line below the drive USP factor.

So, then we have a USP like this?
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> USP v2
AA-0000000-0-111111-222222-333333-444-555
789ff 666666-666666-666</pre>[/QUOTE]where 789 are, respectively, hits to reduce jump-maneuver-power by 1 USP factor?

The weapons portions are now also normalized to laser-energy-paw-meson-disintegrator-missle for turrets and bays, paw-meson-disintegrator fpr spinals.

Now, Oz, how do you calculate the "hits required"?

Ptah, have you considered basing your formula on tonnage of drive, whihc might be a way to calculate Oz's factor?

The combination seems offhand to be a good one.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by The Oz:
A little USP modification I've been playing with (to support Sigg's idea that drives of big ships shouldn't lose one USP factor for one hit) was to put the number of hits needed to reduce the drive USP by one on the line below the drive USP factor.

So, then we have a USP like this?
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> USP v2
AA-0000000-0-111111-222222-333333-444-555
789ff 666666-666666-666</pre>[/QUOTE]where 789 are, respectively, hits to reduce jump-maneuver-power by 1 USP factor?

The weapons portions are now also normalized to laser-energy-paw-meson-disintegrator-missle for turrets and bays, paw-meson-disintegrator fpr spinals.

Now, Oz, how do you calculate the "hits required"?

Ptah, have you considered basing your formula on tonnage of drive, whihc might be a way to calculate Oz's factor?

The combination seems offhand to be a good one.

 

[mike wightman]

Still missing sandcaster bays and repulsor turrets in the expanded USP

The hits required can be dug up from and old thread, I forgot to save them, but Oz may have a copy.

My idea was along the lines of using the Target size DM in some way as the number of hits required to damage a big ship 's drives.
This is what I use:

0-K 1 hit
L-P 2 hits (1 +1)
Q+ 3 hits (1 +2)

On reflection I may change this to:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">0 0.5 hit (a smallcraft makes two damage rolls for each hit)
1-A 1 hit
B-K 2 hits
L-P 3 hits
Q+ 4 hits</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[mike wightman]

Still missing sandcaster bays and repulsor turrets in the expanded USP

The hits required can be dug up from and old thread, I forgot to save them, but Oz may have a copy.

My idea was along the lines of using the Target size DM in some way as the number of hits required to damage a big ship 's drives.
This is what I use:

0-K 1 hit
L-P 2 hits (1 +1)
Q+ 3 hits (1 +2)

On reflection I may change this to:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">0 0.5 hit (a smallcraft makes two damage rolls for each hit)
1-A 1 hit
B-K 2 hits
L-P 3 hits
Q+ 4 hits</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[mike wightman]

Here's where the original discussion took place.

There's lots of other useful stuff in that thread too.

 

[mike wightman]

Here's where the original discussion took place.

There's lots of other useful stuff in that thread too.

 

[The Oz]

Here's how I'd handle the USP revision:

REVISING THE USP:

Crew: The ship's hull tonnage divided by 10,000, rounded up, gives the number of crew units on the ship. Each crew unit includes one damage control party. The number of Crew units is recorded on the USP on the Batteries line immediately below the Crew USP code.

Drives: Ships of size 0 lose all of a drive's rating when it takes one hit. Ships of size 1 to size J lose one point of drive per drive hit. Ships of size K to Q lose one point of drive for every two drive hits. Ships of size R to size T lose one drive point for every three drive hits. Ships of size U to size X lose one drive point for every four drive hits. Ships of size Y+ lose one drive point for every five drive hits. The number of drive hits needed to reduce the drive rating by one is recorded on the Batteries Bearing line immediately below the jump drive USP code.

Fuel: Ships of size 0 lose all fuel capacity when they take a single Fuel-1 hit. Ships of size 1 to size J lose one percent of total fuel capacity per Fuel-1 hit. Ships of size K to Q lose one percent of total fuel capacity for every two Fuel-1 hits. Ships of size R to size T lose one percent of total fuel capacity for every three Fuel-1 hits. Ships of size U to size X lose one percent of total fuel capacity for every four Fuel-1 hits. Ships of size Y+ lose one percent of total fuel capacity for every five Fuel-1 hits. The number of Fuel-1 hits needed to reduce the total fuel capacity by one percent is recorded on the Batteries Bearing line immediately below the power plant USP code.

Bridge: Ships of size 0 lose all Bridges to a single Bridge hit. Ships of size 1 to K lose one Bridge per Bridge hit. Ships of size L to S lose one Bridge per two Bridge Hits. Ships of size T+ lose one Bridge per three Bridge hits. The number of Bridge hits needed to destroy one Bridge is recorded on the Batteries Bearing line of the USP, immediately beneath the Configuration USP code. The total number of Bridges on the ship is recorded on the Batteries line, below the Configuration USP code.

Backups: If the ship has backup drives, computers, or screens the total number of such backups is recorded on the Batteries line, immediately below the appropriate system USP code.

Example: a 100,000 ton ship can take 3 drive hits before it loses one drive rating. It can take 3 Fuel-1 hits before it loses 1 percent of total fuel capacity. It can take two bridge hits before it loses one Bridge and has only one Bridge. It has one backup computer, nuclear damper and meson screen. It also has 10 crew units (and so 10 damage control parties). The USP would look like this:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> CX-R4369J3-899905-999N9-4 100ktons
Bat 11112A C22 F C63 L
Bat Bear 23 3 9 B 942 E</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[The Oz]

Here's how I'd handle the USP revision:

REVISING THE USP:

Crew: The ship's hull tonnage divided by 10,000, rounded up, gives the number of crew units on the ship. Each crew unit includes one damage control party. The number of Crew units is recorded on the USP on the Batteries line immediately below the Crew USP code.

Drives: Ships of size 0 lose all of a drive's rating when it takes one hit. Ships of size 1 to size J lose one point of drive per drive hit. Ships of size K to Q lose one point of drive for every two drive hits. Ships of size R to size T lose one drive point for every three drive hits. Ships of size U to size X lose one drive point for every four drive hits. Ships of size Y+ lose one drive point for every five drive hits. The number of drive hits needed to reduce the drive rating by one is recorded on the Batteries Bearing line immediately below the jump drive USP code.

Fuel: Ships of size 0 lose all fuel capacity when they take a single Fuel-1 hit. Ships of size 1 to size J lose one percent of total fuel capacity per Fuel-1 hit. Ships of size K to Q lose one percent of total fuel capacity for every two Fuel-1 hits. Ships of size R to size T lose one percent of total fuel capacity for every three Fuel-1 hits. Ships of size U to size X lose one percent of total fuel capacity for every four Fuel-1 hits. Ships of size Y+ lose one percent of total fuel capacity for every five Fuel-1 hits. The number of Fuel-1 hits needed to reduce the total fuel capacity by one percent is recorded on the Batteries Bearing line immediately below the power plant USP code.

Bridge: Ships of size 0 lose all Bridges to a single Bridge hit. Ships of size 1 to K lose one Bridge per Bridge hit. Ships of size L to S lose one Bridge per two Bridge Hits. Ships of size T+ lose one Bridge per three Bridge hits. The number of Bridge hits needed to destroy one Bridge is recorded on the Batteries Bearing line of the USP, immediately beneath the Configuration USP code. The total number of Bridges on the ship is recorded on the Batteries line, below the Configuration USP code.

Backups: If the ship has backup drives, computers, or screens the total number of such backups is recorded on the Batteries line, immediately below the appropriate system USP code.

Example: a 100,000 ton ship can take 3 drive hits before it loses one drive rating. It can take 3 Fuel-1 hits before it loses 1 percent of total fuel capacity. It can take two bridge hits before it loses one Bridge and has only one Bridge. It has one backup computer, nuclear damper and meson screen. It also has 10 crew units (and so 10 damage control parties). The USP would look like this:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> CX-R4369J3-899905-999N9-4 100ktons
Bat 11112A C22 F C63 L
Bat Bear 23 3 9 B 942 E</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[The Oz]

I have lots of other stuff: new damage tables for HG (including a new Critical Hits table), adjustments to Agility and Armor from Configuration, my "spinal mount turrets" rule, X-ray laser warheads for bay missiles....

 

[The Oz]

I have lots of other stuff: new damage tables for HG (including a new Critical Hits table), adjustments to Agility and Armor from Configuration, my "spinal mount turrets" rule, X-ray laser warheads for bay missiles....

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Still missing sandcaster bays and repulsor turrets in the expanded USP

Yeah, I know, but I was thinking let's get the other USP details hashed, then retro-fit to sandcasters and repulsors/manipulators.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
My idea was along the lines of using the Target size DM in some way as the number of hits required to damage a big ship 's drives.

And Oz has something similar. I don't necessarily disagree. I have the thought that basing the 'hits to damage' might be better if based on the tonnage of the drives. Say one ship has x tons of maneuver and y tons of jump and a second ship of the same overall tonnage has x/2 tons of maneuver and y*2 tons of jump - for whatever reason - then basing the number of hits to damage will vary between the ships.

Whatcha think?

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Still missing sandcaster bays and repulsor turrets in the expanded USP

Yeah, I know, but I was thinking let's get the other USP details hashed, then retro-fit to sandcasters and repulsors/manipulators.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
My idea was along the lines of using the Target size DM in some way as the number of hits required to damage a big ship 's drives.

And Oz has something similar. I don't necessarily disagree. I have the thought that basing the 'hits to damage' might be better if based on the tonnage of the drives. Say one ship has x tons of maneuver and y tons of jump and a second ship of the same overall tonnage has x/2 tons of maneuver and y*2 tons of jump - for whatever reason - then basing the number of hits to damage will vary between the ships.

Whatcha think?

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by The Oz:
I have lots of other stuff: new damage tables for HG (including a new Critical Hits table), adjustments to Agility and Armor from Configuration, my "spinal mount turrets" rule, X-ray laser warheads for bay missiles....

Post it all