High Guard 3

[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.

 

[BillDowns]

I don't want to get hung up on hits to damage, so I propose using Sigg's table - it is easier than Ptah's formula and results in lower numbers.

To re-iterate:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Hits to Damage

Hull Factor Hits to Damage*
----------- --------------
0 1
1-9 1
A-J 2
K-Q 3
R-X 4
Y 5

* Reduce USP by 1</pre>[/QUOTE]What's the verdict?

 

[BillDowns]

I don't want to get hung up on hits to damage, so I propose using Sigg's table - it is easier than Ptah's formula and results in lower numbers.

To re-iterate:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Hits to Damage

Hull Factor Hits to Damage*
----------- --------------
0 1
1-9 1
A-J 2
K-Q 3
R-X 4
Y 5

* Reduce USP by 1</pre>[/QUOTE]What's the verdict?

 

[mike wightman]

Well I for one will vote in favour

 

[mike wightman]

Well I for one will vote in favour

 

[The Oz]

I'd vote for it.

 

[The Oz]

I'd vote for it.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by 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>

The revision to Ptah's formula is to base it on the drive tonnage instead of ship tonnage. Excel was the tool.
...
snip...
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... [/quote]Thanks BD, Yep, if it is to be used I'd tabulate it (many tables are presented as it without indicating how they are derived) and mention the formula for those interested.

The lower cap of Sigg's formula, however, does make it easier to handle for large ships.

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by 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>

The revision to Ptah's formula is to base it on the drive tonnage instead of ship tonnage. Excel was the tool.
...
snip...
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... [/quote]Thanks BD, Yep, if it is to be used I'd tabulate it (many tables are presented as it without indicating how they are derived) and mention the formula for those interested.

The lower cap of Sigg's formula, however, does make it easier to handle for large ships.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by The Oz:
A thought which occurs to me....

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.

That depends. For example, the size DMs to hit are a penalty for creating a big ship. It would probably be helpful if the toughness breakpoints matched up, so that going up a hull size would make you easier to hit but tougher.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by The Oz:
A thought which occurs to me....

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.

That depends. For example, the size DMs to hit are a penalty for creating a big ship. It would probably be helpful if the toughness breakpoints matched up, so that going up a hull size would make you easier to hit but tougher.

 

[Ptah]

Must remember to refresh before posting .

I'll vote for Sigg's as well because it parallels the component damage approach.


Here's an idea, for a large ship why not keep track of "hits to damage" once not for every component. Once the number of hits equals the magic number, the system damaged is either rolled randomly or selected. A bit more abstract but may keep down the book keeping. Just a rough idea and may not apply to all systems.

 

[Ptah]

Must remember to refresh before posting .

I'll vote for Sigg's as well because it parallels the component damage approach.


Here's an idea, for a large ship why not keep track of "hits to damage" once not for every component. Once the number of hits equals the magic number, the system damaged is either rolled randomly or selected. A bit more abstract but may keep down the book keeping. Just a rough idea and may not apply to all systems.

 

[BillDowns]

That's a good idea, Ptah.

So, is the "hits to damage" topic resolved? What's next?

 

[BillDowns]

That's a good idea, Ptah.

So, is the "hits to damage" topic resolved? What's next?

 

[BillDowns]

Let me go ahead and throw out one topic: computers. I happen to like the LBB2 approach where the particular software loaded affects your DM for hits. That's one of the things that attracted me to Traveller in the first place. No one else had anything remotely close.

What I suggest will hopefully recover that particular original flavor of LBB2. I suggest that each battery has to have its own copy of Predict, or Launch, or whatever program provides DMs. These are the DMs to go under the battery codes.

Simple, no?

 

[BillDowns]

Let me go ahead and throw out one topic: computers. I happen to like the LBB2 approach where the particular software loaded affects your DM for hits. That's one of the things that attracted me to Traveller in the first place. No one else had anything remotely close.

What I suggest will hopefully recover that particular original flavor of LBB2. I suggest that each battery has to have its own copy of Predict, or Launch, or whatever program provides DMs. These are the DMs to go under the battery codes.

Simple, no?

 

[mike wightman]

The computer rules in High Guard assume a TL15 model 9 computer is running predict 9, maneuver/evade 9 etc. so the knock on effect of this is to change the combat resolution system to derive DMs from relative running software.

 

[mike wightman]

The computer rules in High Guard assume a TL15 model 9 computer is running predict 9, maneuver/evade 9 etc. so the knock on effect of this is to change the combat resolution system to derive DMs from relative running software.

 

[The Oz]

Given how much HG ships cost, it's a small matter to provide the best software to all batteries, which means that ships will usually have the best available software running on the best available computers, which is basically what the regular HG computer rule says.

If we were creating a "small ship universe" HG system tracking individual battery software might be worth it, but for "big ship" HG I don't think it's worth the trouble.