High Guard 3

[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.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by 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.

Good data points. I like 0.125 tons personally, don't ask me why, but I think it came out of looking at Jane's back in 1979 or so and picking a missile I liked. I don't know if SS3 had come out by then but I couldn't afford the JTAS anyway so made do.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by 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.

Good data points. I like 0.125 tons personally, don't ask me why, but I think it came out of looking at Jane's back in 1979 or so and picking a missile I liked. I don't know if SS3 had come out by then but I couldn't afford the JTAS anyway so made do.

 

[Pickles]

I don't think missile rounds would be too hard to keep track of even with larger ships, compared to hit points (or 'tonnage points'). I've always used the '3 missiles per launcher' rule in HG, even if it's not canon.

And disposable ordnance should definitely be accounted for, especially if missiles are made more effective. Otherwise, the advantage in kill-power gained by small craft is lost if capital ships are assumed to have unlimited rounds.

What about hit points based directly on tonnage? Then 'all' that would be needed is to work out damage for the weapon types. Armour directly subtracts from damage.

 

[Pickles]

I don't think missile rounds would be too hard to keep track of even with larger ships, compared to hit points (or 'tonnage points'). I've always used the '3 missiles per launcher' rule in HG, even if it's not canon.

And disposable ordnance should definitely be accounted for, especially if missiles are made more effective. Otherwise, the advantage in kill-power gained by small craft is lost if capital ships are assumed to have unlimited rounds.

What about hit points based directly on tonnage? Then 'all' that would be needed is to work out damage for the weapon types. Armour directly subtracts from damage.

 

[aramis]

Bill: MT and T20 use the USP factors, but not in the hyper-compressed (and to me unreadable, despite 23+ years of Traveller) Bk5 single-line.

For example:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Drives: M4 J5 P5
Lasers
USP 99A
Batt A51
Bear 421

Missiles
USP 47A
Batt 751
Bear 321</pre>[/QUOTE]The separated listings are Turrets/Bays/Spinals, hence allowing spinals and bays of the same types as lesser mountings. More human readable.

 

[aramis]

Bill: MT and T20 use the USP factors, but not in the hyper-compressed (and to me unreadable, despite 23+ years of Traveller) Bk5 single-line.

For example:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Drives: M4 J5 P5
Lasers
USP 99A
Batt A51
Bear 421

Missiles
USP 47A
Batt 751
Bear 321</pre>[/QUOTE]The separated listings are Turrets/Bays/Spinals, hence allowing spinals and bays of the same types as lesser mountings. More human readable.

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Bill: MT and T20 use the USP factors, but not in the hyper-compressed (and to me unreadable, despite 23+ years of Traveller) Bk5 single-line.

For example:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Drives: M4 J5 P5
Lasers
USP 99A
Batt A51
Bear 421

Missiles
USP 47A
Batt 751
Bear 321</pre>

The separated listings are Turrets/Bays/Spinals, hence allowing spinals and bays of the same types as lesser mountings. More human readable. [/quote]So, that example shows 10 laser batteries at factor 9 with 4 bearing, 5 bays at factor 9 with 2 bearing, and a spinal at factor 10?

What weapon mounts and/or weapons are in HG1 and not in HG2?

 

[BillDowns]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Bill: MT and T20 use the USP factors, but not in the hyper-compressed (and to me unreadable, despite 23+ years of Traveller) Bk5 single-line.

For example:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Drives: M4 J5 P5
Lasers
USP 99A
Batt A51
Bear 421

Missiles
USP 47A
Batt 751
Bear 321</pre>

The separated listings are Turrets/Bays/Spinals, hence allowing spinals and bays of the same types as lesser mountings. More human readable. [/quote]So, that example shows 10 laser batteries at factor 9 with 4 bearing, 5 bays at factor 9 with 2 bearing, and a spinal at factor 10?

What weapon mounts and/or weapons are in HG1 and not in HG2?

 

[BillDowns]

For tracking damages and expended rounds, I have an idea. I'll post it when I have more details worked out.

For "hits to damage", here is one proposal. Please consider this as a proposal only; I think it might still need work.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Hits to Damage
J-drive-2 M-Drive-2
Hull Tons Hits Tons Hits
500 15 1 25 1
1000 30 1 50 1
5000 150 3 250 3
10000 300 6 500 5
50000 1500 30 2500 25
100000 3000 60 5000 50
500000 15000 300 25000 250

Factor 50 100 </pre>[/QUOTE]The Excel formula is =IF((B4/$B$12)<1,1,B4/$B$12) where B4 is the Drive Size, $B$12 is the Factor at the bottom.

Opinions?

 

[BillDowns]

For tracking damages and expended rounds, I have an idea. I'll post it when I have more details worked out.

For "hits to damage", here is one proposal. Please consider this as a proposal only; I think it might still need work.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Hits to Damage
J-drive-2 M-Drive-2
Hull Tons Hits Tons Hits
500 15 1 25 1
1000 30 1 50 1
5000 150 3 250 3
10000 300 6 500 5
50000 1500 30 2500 25
100000 3000 60 5000 50
500000 15000 300 25000 250

Factor 50 100 </pre>[/QUOTE]The Excel formula is =IF((B4/$B$12)<1,1,B4/$B$12) where B4 is the Drive Size, $B$12 is the Factor at the bottom.

Opinions?

 

[The Oz]

I think that 300 hits for an SD's drive would be a lot of record-keeping. That's why I set up the system I proposed (based on a system Sigg had proposed) to have only 30 hits for even the biggest ship's drive, and you only had to track 5 of those at a time, max.

 

[The Oz]

I think that 300 hits for an SD's drive would be a lot of record-keeping. That's why I set up the system I proposed (based on a system Sigg had proposed) to have only 30 hits for even the biggest ship's drive, and you only had to track 5 of those at a time, max.

 

[BillDowns]

Okay, going back a few pages, I present ---

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ptah's Formula (revised)

Hull J-Drive 2 M-Drive 4
tons htd tons htd
90 0 0 9.9 0
100 3 0 11 1
500 15 1 55 3
700 21 1 77 3
1000 30 2 110 4
5000 150 4 550 7
10000 300 6 1100 9
50000 1500 10 5500 14
100000 3000 12 11000 16
500000 15000 17 55000 22</pre>[/QUOTE]The revision to Ptah's formula is to base it on the drive tonnage instead of ship tonnage. Excel was the tool.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Sigg's Formula (revised)

Hull J-Drive 2 M-Drive 4
tons htd tons htd
90 0 0 9.9 0
100 3 2 11 4
500 15 2 55 4
700 21 2 77 4
1000 30 4 110 8
5000 150 4 550 8
10000 300 6 1100 12
50000 1500 6 5500 12
100000 3000 8 11000 16
500000 15000 8 55000 16</pre>[/QUOTE]I revised Sigg's formula - table actually - by multiplying the 0-4 rating against the drive factor.

I rather like the way Ptah's formula worked, but that sure would be bugger-bear to work w/o a computer or calculator. OTH, Sigg's looks nice, too, and has the double advantage of simplicity and easier damage tracking.

I am still looking at other alternatives...

 

[BillDowns]

Okay, going back a few pages, I present ---

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ptah's Formula (revised)

Hull J-Drive 2 M-Drive 4
tons htd tons htd
90 0 0 9.9 0
100 3 0 11 1
500 15 1 55 3
700 21 1 77 3
1000 30 2 110 4
5000 150 4 550 7
10000 300 6 1100 9
50000 1500 10 5500 14
100000 3000 12 11000 16
500000 15000 17 55000 22</pre>[/QUOTE]The revision to Ptah's formula is to base it on the drive tonnage instead of ship tonnage. Excel was the tool.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Sigg's Formula (revised)

Hull J-Drive 2 M-Drive 4
tons htd tons htd
90 0 0 9.9 0
100 3 2 11 4
500 15 2 55 4
700 21 2 77 4
1000 30 4 110 8
5000 150 4 550 8
10000 300 6 1100 12
50000 1500 6 5500 12
100000 3000 8 11000 16
500000 15000 8 55000 16</pre>[/QUOTE]I revised Sigg's formula - table actually - by multiplying the 0-4 rating against the drive factor.

I rather like the way Ptah's formula worked, but that sure would be bugger-bear to work w/o a computer or calculator. OTH, Sigg's looks nice, too, and has the double advantage of simplicity and easier damage tracking.

I am still looking at other alternatives...

 

[The Oz]

A thought which occurs to me....

There are several HG ship characteristics which have various "break-points" that provide granularity: the size DM to hit (which itself is based on the size code table), the computer size needed for a given ship size, the Batteries bearing table. We are thinking about adding more: hit points for drives and other components, crew units, maybe even launch/recovery rates and who knows what else.

I suggest that we make sure (as much as possible) that the "break-points" for these new characteristics not match up with the existing breakpoints, as much as we can. The idea here is to help minimize the "mini-maxing" tendency that most of us tend to have in ship design. Try to make the ship design system so that if you go for a particular size you might gain something, but you're having to give up something else.

I would also like to see tables for Hull Configuration affecting Agility (more "spread-out" hull forms causing ships to be less maneuverable), and for Hull Configuration affecting Armor Rating (more "spread-out" hulls needing more armor tonnage for the same protection). Hull size should affect Agility as well, bigger ships should just be slower to maneuver (even with the same G's of acceleration) just from having a larger moment of inertia.

 

[The Oz]

A thought which occurs to me....

There are several HG ship characteristics which have various "break-points" that provide granularity: the size DM to hit (which itself is based on the size code table), the computer size needed for a given ship size, the Batteries bearing table. We are thinking about adding more: hit points for drives and other components, crew units, maybe even launch/recovery rates and who knows what else.

I suggest that we make sure (as much as possible) that the "break-points" for these new characteristics not match up with the existing breakpoints, as much as we can. The idea here is to help minimize the "mini-maxing" tendency that most of us tend to have in ship design. Try to make the ship design system so that if you go for a particular size you might gain something, but you're having to give up something else.

I would also like to see tables for Hull Configuration affecting Agility (more "spread-out" hull forms causing ships to be less maneuverable), and for Hull Configuration affecting Armor Rating (more "spread-out" hulls needing more armor tonnage for the same protection). Hull size should affect Agility as well, bigger ships should just be slower to maneuver (even with the same G's of acceleration) just from having a larger moment of inertia.

 

[mike wightman]

Hull configuration also affects surface area, so the number of hardpoints should be affected too.

GT:ISW ship design has configuration affect armour and hardpoints...

 

[mike wightman]

Hull configuration also affects surface area, so the number of hardpoints should be affected too.

GT:ISW ship design has configuration affect armour and hardpoints...

 

[BillDowns]

Oz, I don't know how you would do that. The HG size table was not built formulaically, but based on "how it looks" like LBB2 before it. I think that to do that would be to "break" HG to a major degree.

I would prefer to defer that to High Guard 4.

Quite irrelevantly, I wish like hell GDW had spent a little money back then on a spreadsheet. In late '79 or early '80, I sold Steve Cole an Apple II with word processor and Visicalc for Star Fleet Battles. That game's stats held up for a very long time - might still today.