High Guard 3
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
I was hoping we could get a bunch of people to agree on some HG extensions on the theory certain people might listen and adapt.
Grouping bay weapons into batteries does not preclude the use of larger bays. THere could always be room for that, too. Do you have some samples of the larger bays?
Or should we focus on the "hits to damage" concept?
I was hoping we could get a bunch of people to agree on some HG extensions on the theory certain people might listen and adapt.
Grouping bay weapons into batteries does not preclude the use of larger bays. THere could always be room for that, too. Do you have some samples of the larger bays?
Or should we focus on the "hits to damage" concept?
Originally posted by BillDowns:
Fair enough. My own view on "HG3" spinals, is the central placement (the ship is built around them) means they are not figured into the % of ship dedicated to weapons. That is they don't decrease your number of hard points. A limit should be set on how big they can be, and they should be hard to aim. In the end it would be a matter of fleet build philosophy (and combat mechanics) whether these big exspensive guns should be built. On bay weapons i'll say a little more later as I work through the thread. Geez a guy works a few days and a topic explodes.
Yep. Don't disagree with the size thing. I personally these days follow the heresay of 1 weapon mount per turret (at least of the HG level of power). It's more from the angle of not letting turrets do double duty and force the design of point-defense escort vessles. The point defense weapons being of the same size but specifically designed for "close in" (what 100 kilometers in space
Originally posted by BillDowns:
Fair enough. My own view on "HG3" spinals, is the central placement (the ship is built around them) means they are not figured into the % of ship dedicated to weapons. That is they don't decrease your number of hard points. A limit should be set on how big they can be, and they should be hard to aim. In the end it would be a matter of fleet build philosophy (and combat mechanics) whether these big exspensive guns should be built. On bay weapons i'll say a little more later as I work through the thread. Geez a guy works a few days and a topic explodes.
Yep. Don't disagree with the size thing. I personally these days follow the heresay of 1 weapon mount per turret (at least of the HG level of power). It's more from the angle of not letting turrets do double duty and force the design of point-defense escort vessles. The point defense weapons being of the same size but specifically designed for "close in" (what 100 kilometers in space
How do you handle keeping track of the hits? Do you track them on a ship card for example and when you get three reduce the drive by one and erase the markings? Just wondering if this adds much extra book keeping since it is a way I'd like to do it versus a weighted odds all-or-nothing kind of roll.
How do you handle keeping track of the hits? Do you track them on a ship card for example and when you get three reduce the drive by one and erase the markings? Just wondering if this adds much extra book keeping since it is a way I'd like to do it versus a weighted odds all-or-nothing kind of roll.
[/quote]My "votes"Originally posted by BillDowns:
(Responses requested)
Summary - please note if you agree or disagree.
1) Bay weapons can be grouped into batteries using the same ratios as turrets for the same weapon type.
2) Revised USP format -call v2.0 or even v3.0 I don't care. Suggested format:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> USP v2.0 or 3.0
AA-0000000-0-111111-222222-333333-444-555
777ff 666666-666666-666
group "0000000-0" is tonnage-configuration-jump-acceleration-power-cpu-storage-crew
group "777" is hit points to damage (by 1) USP
group "ff" indicates fibre optic backup
group "111111" is armor-sand-meson screen-dampers-force field-repulsors
group "222222" is laser-energy-paw-meson-disintegrator-missle turrets
group "333333" is laser-energy-paw-meson-disintegrator-missle bays
group "444" is paw-meson-disintegrator spinals
group "666666-666666-666" are computer-based DM to hit for each battery
group "555" is fighter-attack-support smallcraft</pre>
(1) I'm actually in favor of removing batteries. Instead, focus on mounting (which potentially has weapon volume, cost and chance to hit implications) and total the power of all the weapons of a certain type and mounting. This does remove a level of detail but here is how I'd suggest getting it back.
Have the weapon rating reflect an exponential scale, which it does already in HG2 in large measure. So x tons of weapon for rating 1; 2x tons for rating 2; 4x tons for rating 3, etc. You list the highest rating you can achieve for that given weapon and mounting type, say it is 5. In combat you can use this 5 how you wish, as one attack at 5, two attacks at 4, one attack at 4 and two at 3, etc. One may wish to limit the number of attacks and/or add negative to hit modifiers as you increase the number of attacks. Also one may only allow one attack per target, not two attacks at 4 on the smae target just one attack at 5. Or two attacks at 4 but each on a different target. Also a way to "stream" fire over small craft that are not grouped.
How the actual weapons are mounted on the ship, e.g., 16 small turrets, or all in one big turret that divides its firing time up, is below the level of resolution. Likewise, I'd remove batteries bearing if assuming a 20 minute long combat turn. All my view of course, and maybe to far afield from HG2.
But to answer the original question, I'd like bays to group into batteries if turrets can.
(2) Like the code structure. A thought on the 555 portion, since it looks so lonely without a second line
, how about its second line being the number/rating of craft that can be launched/recovered in a turn.[/quote]My "votes"Originally posted by BillDowns:
(Responses requested)
Summary - please note if you agree or disagree.
1) Bay weapons can be grouped into batteries using the same ratios as turrets for the same weapon type.
2) Revised USP format -call v2.0 or even v3.0 I don't care. Suggested format:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> USP v2.0 or 3.0
AA-0000000-0-111111-222222-333333-444-555
777ff 666666-666666-666
group "0000000-0" is tonnage-configuration-jump-acceleration-power-cpu-storage-crew
group "777" is hit points to damage (by 1) USP
group "ff" indicates fibre optic backup
group "111111" is armor-sand-meson screen-dampers-force field-repulsors
group "222222" is laser-energy-paw-meson-disintegrator-missle turrets
group "333333" is laser-energy-paw-meson-disintegrator-missle bays
group "444" is paw-meson-disintegrator spinals
group "666666-666666-666" are computer-based DM to hit for each battery
group "555" is fighter-attack-support smallcraft</pre>
(1) I'm actually in favor of removing batteries. Instead, focus on mounting (which potentially has weapon volume, cost and chance to hit implications) and total the power of all the weapons of a certain type and mounting. This does remove a level of detail but here is how I'd suggest getting it back.
Have the weapon rating reflect an exponential scale, which it does already in HG2 in large measure. So x tons of weapon for rating 1; 2x tons for rating 2; 4x tons for rating 3, etc. You list the highest rating you can achieve for that given weapon and mounting type, say it is 5. In combat you can use this 5 how you wish, as one attack at 5, two attacks at 4, one attack at 4 and two at 3, etc. One may wish to limit the number of attacks and/or add negative to hit modifiers as you increase the number of attacks. Also one may only allow one attack per target, not two attacks at 4 on the smae target just one attack at 5. Or two attacks at 4 but each on a different target. Also a way to "stream" fire over small craft that are not grouped.
How the actual weapons are mounted on the ship, e.g., 16 small turrets, or all in one big turret that divides its firing time up, is below the level of resolution. Likewise, I'd remove batteries bearing if assuming a 20 minute long combat turn. All my view of course, and maybe to far afield from HG2.
But to answer the original question, I'd like bays to group into batteries if turrets can.
(2) Like the code structure. A thought on the 555 portion, since it looks so lonely without a second line
, how about its second line being the number/rating of craft that can be launched/recovered in a turn.
I agree with grouping large weapons into batteries. I strenuously dislike the USP format as a rule.
MT and T20 reflect a more useful format.
I agree with Ptah about Batts Bearing... to a point. If one assumes that a turn-battery-round is not a "Full Turn of Continuous fire", then batteries bearing matters not. If, however, one assumes that a turn's fire is the weapons involved firing on the target for almost all the round, then only some will be brought to bear long enough to count for full fire value.
If, however, one presumes a 10% or less firing rate (less than 10% of the time the weapon needs to be aimed on target), then batteries bearing becomes immaterial. But we then need to look at the rates of weapon fire, and what constitutes a turn-battery-round, and how-many could be fired.
Note: Given the vehicular rules in MT, I've found that, even with the generous Hits modifier in the DGP MT Ref's Screen, a few good hits are lethal even to escorts. And the ROF given is good for several shots per turn.
MT and T20 reflect a more useful format.
I agree with Ptah about Batts Bearing... to a point. If one assumes that a turn-battery-round is not a "Full Turn of Continuous fire", then batteries bearing matters not. If, however, one assumes that a turn's fire is the weapons involved firing on the target for almost all the round, then only some will be brought to bear long enough to count for full fire value.
If, however, one presumes a 10% or less firing rate (less than 10% of the time the weapon needs to be aimed on target), then batteries bearing becomes immaterial. But we then need to look at the rates of weapon fire, and what constitutes a turn-battery-round, and how-many could be fired.
Note: Given the vehicular rules in MT, I've found that, even with the generous Hits modifier in the DGP MT Ref's Screen, a few good hits are lethal even to escorts. And the ROF given is good for several shots per turn.
I agree with grouping large weapons into batteries. I strenuously dislike the USP format as a rule.
MT and T20 reflect a more useful format.
I agree with Ptah about Batts Bearing... to a point. If one assumes that a turn-battery-round is not a "Full Turn of Continuous fire", then batteries bearing matters not. If, however, one assumes that a turn's fire is the weapons involved firing on the target for almost all the round, then only some will be brought to bear long enough to count for full fire value.
If, however, one presumes a 10% or less firing rate (less than 10% of the time the weapon needs to be aimed on target), then batteries bearing becomes immaterial. But we then need to look at the rates of weapon fire, and what constitutes a turn-battery-round, and how-many could be fired.
Note: Given the vehicular rules in MT, I've found that, even with the generous Hits modifier in the DGP MT Ref's Screen, a few good hits are lethal even to escorts. And the ROF given is good for several shots per turn.
MT and T20 reflect a more useful format.
I agree with Ptah about Batts Bearing... to a point. If one assumes that a turn-battery-round is not a "Full Turn of Continuous fire", then batteries bearing matters not. If, however, one assumes that a turn's fire is the weapons involved firing on the target for almost all the round, then only some will be brought to bear long enough to count for full fire value.
If, however, one presumes a 10% or less firing rate (less than 10% of the time the weapon needs to be aimed on target), then batteries bearing becomes immaterial. But we then need to look at the rates of weapon fire, and what constitutes a turn-battery-round, and how-many could be fired.
Note: Given the vehicular rules in MT, I've found that, even with the generous Hits modifier in the DGP MT Ref's Screen, a few good hits are lethal even to escorts. And the ROF given is good for several shots per turn.
P
Pickles
Guest
1) Yes
2) Yes
Provided tonnages are worked out before play, I see no problem with basing damage on component tonnage. With the limited components available in HG, it's easy enough to have record cards for each ship. Battletech, anyone?
2) Yes
Provided tonnages are worked out before play, I see no problem with basing damage on component tonnage. With the limited components available in HG, it's easy enough to have record cards for each ship. Battletech, anyone?
P
Pickles
Guest
1) Yes
2) Yes
Provided tonnages are worked out before play, I see no problem with basing damage on component tonnage. With the limited components available in HG, it's easy enough to have record cards for each ship. Battletech, anyone?
2) Yes
Provided tonnages are worked out before play, I see no problem with basing damage on component tonnage. With the limited components available in HG, it's easy enough to have record cards for each ship. Battletech, anyone?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I also think that having both options is the way to go.
But then, I still think that the spinal mount can be made a % based component - final tonnage and TL would then dictate maximum EP and cost, not to mention weapon factor.
That's how I feel about things too. I'll take the bits I like, but it's useful to have all the options.
Couldn't agree more.
I don't know why T20 keeps this artificial division either, since it has a ship format that lends itself to any types of weapons in any mounts.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I also think that having both options is the way to go.
But then, I still think that the spinal mount can be made a % based component - final tonnage and TL would then dictate maximum EP and cost, not to mention weapon factor.
That's how I feel about things too. I'll take the bits I like, but it's useful to have all the options.
Couldn't agree more.
I don't know why T20 keeps this artificial division either, since it has a ship format that lends itself to any types of weapons in any mounts.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
EXPLANATION OF DAMAGE RESULTS (where different from regular High Guard)
</font>
- Crew-1: One crew unit (including one damage control party) killed. If all crew units are killed the ship is completely helpless; unable to jump or maneuver (Agility-0), fire any weapons, use any screens or launch/retrieve any other craft.</font>
- Fuel-n: One hit is taken to the fuel tanks per "n".</font>
- Jump-n: One hit taken to the jump drive per "n".</font>
- Power Plant-n: One hit taken to the power plant per "n".</font>
- Maneuver-n: One hit taken to the maneuver drive per "n".</font>
- Weapon-n: One factor of spinal mount weaponry, or nine factors of other weaponry, is lost per "n". This can mean the lost of several small batteries of bay/turret weapons, even weapons of different types. If possible all weapon batteries lost to a single die roll should be the same type. The firing player chooses which weapons are lost but damage must be divided up as evenly as possible between all weapons actually present on the target.</font>
- Bridge Hit: One hit is taken to the ship's bridge. If all bridges are destroyed, the ship may not maneuver or jump, is treated as Agility-0 and all weapons fire as if the computer is half its actual factor (rounded down).</font>
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
EXPLANATION OF DAMAGE RESULTS (where different from regular High Guard)
</font>
- Crew-1: One crew unit (including one damage control party) killed. If all crew units are killed the ship is completely helpless; unable to jump or maneuver (Agility-0), fire any weapons, use any screens or launch/retrieve any other craft.</font>
- Fuel-n: One hit is taken to the fuel tanks per "n".</font>
- Jump-n: One hit taken to the jump drive per "n".</font>
- Power Plant-n: One hit taken to the power plant per "n".</font>
- Maneuver-n: One hit taken to the maneuver drive per "n".</font>
- Weapon-n: One factor of spinal mount weaponry, or nine factors of other weaponry, is lost per "n". This can mean the lost of several small batteries of bay/turret weapons, even weapons of different types. If possible all weapon batteries lost to a single die roll should be the same type. The firing player chooses which weapons are lost but damage must be divided up as evenly as possible between all weapons actually present on the target.</font>
- Bridge Hit: One hit is taken to the ship's bridge. If all bridges are destroyed, the ship may not maneuver or jump, is treated as Agility-0 and all weapons fire as if the computer is half its actual factor (rounded down).</font>
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
On the subject of batteries and batteries bearing, High Guard first edition based its USP factors on all of the weapons of a type carried by a ship, it didn't group them into batteries.
Is there any mileage in reworking weapon factors along first edition lines so that you could have:
primary weapon factor - spinal mount
secondary weapon factors(s) - bay weapons (one factor for each weapon type of course)
tertiary/point defence factor - turret weapons (one factor for each weapon type)
Is there any mileage in reworking weapon factors along first edition lines so that you could have:
primary weapon factor - spinal mount
secondary weapon factors(s) - bay weapons (one factor for each weapon type of course)
tertiary/point defence factor - turret weapons (one factor for each weapon type)
