High Guard 3

[mike wightman]

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)

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Ptah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Oz:
...snip...
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).

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I was using little tally marks above each component's USP rating. Since you never needed more than 4 tally marks for any one component it wouldn't get that crowded and once you got enough tally marks to reduce the component rating by 1 you erased the tally marks for that component and started over again.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Ptah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Oz:
...snip...
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).

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. </font>[/QUOTE]I was using little tally marks above each component's USP rating. Since you never needed more than 4 tally marks for any one component it wouldn't get that crowded and once you got enough tally marks to reduce the component rating by 1 you erased the tally marks for that component and started over again.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
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)

Provided some mechanism like the one Ptah suggested is adopted (to allow multiple attacks at lower factors with one weapon rating) I'd have no problem with this, except that I'd want some way to make sure that higher factors of weapons are harder to destroy (under this system the first factor of a rating-9 weapon should be harder to destroy than the first factor of a rating-2 weapon).

Perhaps the number of Weapon-n hits needed to kill one factor of a weapon rating would be equal to the current rating of that weapon? So a factor-9 weapon would have to be hit by a total of nine Weapon-n results?

And I still think I'd like to keep the spinal-bay-turret division, to give tactical combat more flavor.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
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)

Provided some mechanism like the one Ptah suggested is adopted (to allow multiple attacks at lower factors with one weapon rating) I'd have no problem with this, except that I'd want some way to make sure that higher factors of weapons are harder to destroy (under this system the first factor of a rating-9 weapon should be harder to destroy than the first factor of a rating-2 weapon).

Perhaps the number of Weapon-n hits needed to kill one factor of a weapon rating would be equal to the current rating of that weapon? So a factor-9 weapon would have to be hit by a total of nine Weapon-n results?

And I still think I'd like to keep the spinal-bay-turret division, to give tactical combat more flavor.

 

[BillDowns]

Lots of good responses to digest. That's what I was looking for!

Originally posted by Aramis:
MT and T20 reflect a more useful format.

Aramis, I only have my ancient copies of LBB2, 1st ed and HG, 2nd ed. I do have a lot of time playing games like Victory in the Pacific, Ironclads and Star Fleet Battles, though.

Originally posted by tah
Geez a guy works a few days and a topic explodes.

Hey, we gotta do something while waiting for you

Originally posted by :Aramis
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.

Man, that's the point of inexpensive (relatively) escorts. During WWII, escorts were sunk far more often than capital ships.

Now, it seemed early on that a criticism of HG was that a weapons hit would take out a battery, regardless of the size, until only 1 was left, then the USP rating starts going down. That penalizes larger ships in combat. Right? So, how about this: a weapon reduces a player selected battery by 1 USP point?

Related to the previous, is that a hit on a "drive" system reduces it by 1 USP factor, regardless of how big that system is. Again, this penalizes larger ships. Hence the suggestion by someone, don't remember who now,

that these kinds of hits be based on ship tonnage. I offered the modification that base on the size of the "drive" instead. This is based on the idea that a weapon does x dtons of damage rather than x% of damage.

Now the hot topic subject of weapon batteries comes up. Batteries, IMHO, are nice because it simplifies things and, in fact, resembles the real world, even though it is less apparent in today's wet navy environment with fewer weapons overall. They came about as a result of the US Navy's experience in the Spanish-American war. Grouping by batteries with a common fire control director improved hit percentages. from about 2% in 1898 (Spanish breakout from Cuba) to about 20% in 1916 (Jutland).

And finally, one more possible USP revision. This one is radical

Instead of having a section for turrets, bays, and spinals with each weapon type having a digit, consider this approach. Have a section for each type of battery and perhaps a maximum of 6 to 9 battery types. Each would be like this: -123- where "1" is the type of weapon, i.e. laster, ebergy, etc; "2" is the number of batteries; "3" is the USP factor for each battery. Just a thought.

I do like all the discussion. That's great.

 

[BillDowns]

Lots of good responses to digest. That's what I was looking for!

Originally posted by Aramis:
MT and T20 reflect a more useful format.

Aramis, I only have my ancient copies of LBB2, 1st ed and HG, 2nd ed. I do have a lot of time playing games like Victory in the Pacific, Ironclads and Star Fleet Battles, though.

Originally posted by tah
Geez a guy works a few days and a topic explodes.

Hey, we gotta do something while waiting for you

Originally posted by :Aramis
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.

Man, that's the point of inexpensive (relatively) escorts. During WWII, escorts were sunk far more often than capital ships.

Now, it seemed early on that a criticism of HG was that a weapons hit would take out a battery, regardless of the size, until only 1 was left, then the USP rating starts going down. That penalizes larger ships in combat. Right? So, how about this: a weapon reduces a player selected battery by 1 USP point?

Related to the previous, is that a hit on a "drive" system reduces it by 1 USP factor, regardless of how big that system is. Again, this penalizes larger ships. Hence the suggestion by someone, don't remember who now,

that these kinds of hits be based on ship tonnage. I offered the modification that base on the size of the "drive" instead. This is based on the idea that a weapon does x dtons of damage rather than x% of damage.

Now the hot topic subject of weapon batteries comes up. Batteries, IMHO, are nice because it simplifies things and, in fact, resembles the real world, even though it is less apparent in today's wet navy environment with fewer weapons overall. They came about as a result of the US Navy's experience in the Spanish-American war. Grouping by batteries with a common fire control director improved hit percentages. from about 2% in 1898 (Spanish breakout from Cuba) to about 20% in 1916 (Jutland).

And finally, one more possible USP revision. This one is radical

Instead of having a section for turrets, bays, and spinals with each weapon type having a digit, consider this approach. Have a section for each type of battery and perhaps a maximum of 6 to 9 battery types. Each would be like this: -123- where "1" is the type of weapon, i.e. laster, ebergy, etc; "2" is the number of batteries; "3" is the USP factor for each battery. Just a thought.

I do like all the discussion. That's great.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
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)

Wow. I didn't know that. I came at it purely from trying to streamline HG2 to make it more ameneable to fleet battles and also to make room to add different complications.

Originally posted by The Oz:
Provided some mechanism like the one Ptah suggested is adopted (to allow multiple attacks at lower factors with one weapon rating) I'd have no problem with this, except that I'd want some way to make sure that higher factors of weapons are harder to destroy (under this system the first factor of a rating-9 weapon should be harder to destroy than the first factor of a rating-2 weapon).

Perhaps the number of Weapon-n hits needed to kill one factor of a weapon rating would be equal to the current rating of that weapon? So a factor-9 weapon would have to be hit by a total of nine Weapon-n results?

And I still think I'd like to keep the spinal-bay-turret division, to give tactical combat more flavor.

On agree that weapons could be dealt with the same way as other components. We are basically going to a "hit point" type system it seems. Keeping track of damage points I'd sugggest is preferred for smaller scale combats and certainly PC scale use. In larger scale I'm still thinking of a more odds based approach as above. The whole idea being to reduce number of rolls and bookkeeping by having the mechanics favor grouping ships. The end result can be made the same as tracking damage points, e.g., on average it still takes 3 hits to reduce the rating by 1.

All this is weakening the fighter I suspect, maybe the missile needs to be improved to compensate? I'd also like to see the concepts of limited missile shots, i.e., you have so much ammunition based on turns of full firing.

It might also be a way to have fighters land and rearm in combat, which I've always like the idea of as it makes a landing bay have more use than just a way to recover ships before jumping out.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
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)

Wow. I didn't know that. I came at it purely from trying to streamline HG2 to make it more ameneable to fleet battles and also to make room to add different complications.

Originally posted by The Oz:
Provided some mechanism like the one Ptah suggested is adopted (to allow multiple attacks at lower factors with one weapon rating) I'd have no problem with this, except that I'd want some way to make sure that higher factors of weapons are harder to destroy (under this system the first factor of a rating-9 weapon should be harder to destroy than the first factor of a rating-2 weapon).

Perhaps the number of Weapon-n hits needed to kill one factor of a weapon rating would be equal to the current rating of that weapon? So a factor-9 weapon would have to be hit by a total of nine Weapon-n results?

And I still think I'd like to keep the spinal-bay-turret division, to give tactical combat more flavor.

On agree that weapons could be dealt with the same way as other components. We are basically going to a "hit point" type system it seems. Keeping track of damage points I'd sugggest is preferred for smaller scale combats and certainly PC scale use. In larger scale I'm still thinking of a more odds based approach as above. The whole idea being to reduce number of rolls and bookkeeping by having the mechanics favor grouping ships. The end result can be made the same as tracking damage points, e.g., on average it still takes 3 hits to reduce the rating by 1.

All this is weakening the fighter I suspect, maybe the missile needs to be improved to compensate? I'd also like to see the concepts of limited missile shots, i.e., you have so much ammunition based on turns of full firing.

It might also be a way to have fighters land and rearm in combat, which I've always like the idea of as it makes a landing bay have more use than just a way to recover ships before jumping out.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
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)

Sigg, I apologize - I missed your point here.

Can you give an example with, say, 3 PAW bays, 3 Missle Bays, 10 triple lasers, 10 single fusion guns and how this would work in combat and damage allocation?

Pretty, please?

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
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)

Sigg, I apologize - I missed your point here.

Can you give an example with, say, 3 PAW bays, 3 Missle Bays, 10 triple lasers, 10 single fusion guns and how this would work in combat and damage allocation?

Pretty, please?

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Ptah:
All this is weakening the fighter I suspect, maybe the missile needs to be improved to compensate?

Smallcraft tules could be adjusted to allow a smallcraft to carry a honking missle or have a "mini-spinal mount". Imagine a TL10 50-tonner carrying a factor 4 PAW.

I'd also like to see the concepts of limited missile shots, i.e., you have so much ammunition based on turns of full firing.

Totally agree on this. LBB2 says somewhere that one missle launcher carries 3 rounds; I couldn't find anything similar in HG2. But, that raises another book-keeping question - how you going to track usage?

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Ptah:
All this is weakening the fighter I suspect, maybe the missile needs to be improved to compensate?

Smallcraft tules could be adjusted to allow a smallcraft to carry a honking missle or have a "mini-spinal mount". Imagine a TL10 50-tonner carrying a factor 4 PAW.

I'd also like to see the concepts of limited missile shots, i.e., you have so much ammunition based on turns of full firing.

Totally agree on this. LBB2 says somewhere that one missle launcher carries 3 rounds; I couldn't find anything similar in HG2. But, that raises another book-keeping question - how you going to track usage?

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
Can you give an example with, say, 3 PAW bays, 3 Missle Bays, 10 triple lasers, 10 single fusion guns and how this would work in combat and damage allocation?

Do you mean how it works in High Guard first edition, or how would I make it work?

If it's the latter I'm not sure at the moment but I've got some rough ideas.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
Can you give an example with, say, 3 PAW bays, 3 Missle Bays, 10 triple lasers, 10 single fusion guns and how this would work in combat and damage allocation?

Do you mean how it works in High Guard first edition, or how would I make it work?

If it's the latter I'm not sure at the moment but I've got some rough ideas.

 

[BillDowns]

Side note on missles from the real world converted into Traveller terms.

1 Harpoon or Exocet MM-40 is about .5m x .5m x 4.5m; call it .08 dtons or 18 missles in a 1.5 ton box launcher, 1.5m x 3m x 4.5m.

1 Trident D3 is about 1.5m x 1.5m x 10.5m; call it 1.69 tons or 3 missles in a 3.5 ton box launcher, 1.5m x 3m x 10.5m.

 

[BillDowns]

Side note on missles from the real world converted into Traveller terms.

1 Harpoon or Exocet MM-40 is about .5m x .5m x 4.5m; call it .08 dtons or 18 missles in a 1.5 ton box launcher, 1.5m x 3m x 4.5m.

1 Trident D3 is about 1.5m x 1.5m x 10.5m; call it 1.69 tons or 3 missles in a 3.5 ton box launcher, 1.5m x 3m x 10.5m.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Do you mean how it works in High Guard first edition, or how would I make it work?

If it's the latter I'm not sure at the moment but I've got some rough ideas.

Is it too much to ask for both?

I don't have HG1.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Do you mean how it works in High Guard first edition, or how would I make it work?

If it's the latter I'm not sure at the moment but I've got some rough ideas.

Is it too much to ask for both?

I don't have HG1.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by BillDowns:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
All this is weakening the fighter I suspect, maybe the missile needs to be improved to compensate?

Smallcraft tules could be adjusted to allow a smallcraft to carry a honking missle or have a "mini-spinal mount". Imagine a TL10 50-tonner carrying a factor 4 PAW.

</font>[/QUOTE]I like the idea of small craft having a "spinal" weapon which to me is a way of removing the small craft exception to 100 tons per hard point. "Spinal" only in the sense the ship is built around it. In a more complex world, I would reduce the too hit penalty for small craft as they are more easily pivoted/turned about their center of gravity. Especially for fighters where the most G sensitive component, the pilot, can readily be placed on the center of gravity and there are no other crew away from it.

Originally posted by BillDowns:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah: I'd also like to see the concepts of limited missile shots, i.e., you have so much ammunition based on turns of full firing.

Totally agree on this. LBB2 says somewhere that one missle launcher carries 3 rounds; I couldn't find anything similar in HG2. But, that raises another book-keeping question - how you going to track usage? </font>[/QUOTE]Book-keeping is an issue especially if one allows firing of less than full missile factors. If limited to firing full factors, there could be a set of boxes on the ship card that are checked off, or making marks as noted previously for hits. A more draconian way is to note the number of missile-turns a ship has and when the combat gets to that turn you are out of missiles.

Yet another way , is to put down the missile-turns as a number. Each turn you use missiles you must roll against this number, if you fail, you are out of missiles and you check off a box or make a note regarding the same. One can make it so the odds on average reflect the more time-consuming task of book-keeping. As a wargamer, this one holds some attraction, especially at the fleet level. What ships are rated as carrying and what they actually carry are two different things, do to supply problems for example. Running out of missiles too soon can reflect this, having "extra" missiles can reflect maximum loads.

Another, which I like for PC scale, but which is hard to do for large scale battles, is the ship gets missile factor counters. In fact, if using a hex-grid or a range band approach, these counters are the missile counters you use on the "map." I realize that is a whole added level of detail not being discussed at the moment.