High Guard 3
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
szurkey,
I don't have SS3 so I'm wondering if these missile hits are taking the hits for one missile of 0.017 dton and multiplying it or do they take into account the non-linear improvement in missile factor rating in HG2?
For example, 1 missile has a rating of 1, but 30 missiles have a rating of 6 not 30. And it takes a 100 ton bay to get a rating of 9 at TL12.
I don't have SS3 so it may use a completely different system than HG2 where missiles are not so dominant as they appear to be from SS3.
If SS3 style missiles are to be used, I think these numbers show the whole large ship concept is flawed. There is no advantage to large size if a 10 dton (or probably smaller) missile can wipe a 1,000,000 dton vessle. Better to split your fleet into the smallest missile delivary platforms you can make to work logistically and load up on anti-missile weapons.
It just seems to be a logical consequence of the rules you choose if you choose SS3 style missles. Not having SS3 I could be completely wrong on this.
Not saying one needs to follow SS3 style, especially since we are talking HG3 and HG2 certainly had a balance-of-arms (varying with TL) large ship feel.
I don't have SS3 so I'm wondering if these missile hits are taking the hits for one missile of 0.017 dton and multiplying it or do they take into account the non-linear improvement in missile factor rating in HG2?
For example, 1 missile has a rating of 1, but 30 missiles have a rating of 6 not 30. And it takes a 100 ton bay to get a rating of 9 at TL12.
I don't have SS3 so it may use a completely different system than HG2 where missiles are not so dominant as they appear to be from SS3.
If SS3 style missiles are to be used, I think these numbers show the whole large ship concept is flawed. There is no advantage to large size if a 10 dton (or probably smaller) missile can wipe a 1,000,000 dton vessle. Better to split your fleet into the smallest missile delivary platforms you can make to work logistically and load up on anti-missile weapons.
It just seems to be a logical consequence of the rules you choose if you choose SS3 style missles. Not having SS3 I could be completely wrong on this.
Not saying one needs to follow SS3 style, especially since we are talking HG3 and HG2 certainly had a balance-of-arms (varying with TL) large ship feel.
szurkey,
I don't have SS3 so I'm wondering if these missile hits are taking the hits for one missile of 0.017 dton and multiplying it or do they take into account the non-linear improvement in missile factor rating in HG2?
For example, 1 missile has a rating of 1, but 30 missiles have a rating of 6 not 30. And it takes a 100 ton bay to get a rating of 9 at TL12.
I don't have SS3 so it may use a completely different system than HG2 where missiles are not so dominant as they appear to be from SS3.
If SS3 style missiles are to be used, I think these numbers show the whole large ship concept is flawed. There is no advantage to large size if a 10 dton (or probably smaller) missile can wipe a 1,000,000 dton vessle. Better to split your fleet into the smallest missile delivary platforms you can make to work logistically and load up on anti-missile weapons.
It just seems to be a logical consequence of the rules you choose if you choose SS3 style missles. Not having SS3 I could be completely wrong on this.
Not saying one needs to follow SS3 style, especially since we are talking HG3 and HG2 certainly had a balance-of-arms (varying with TL) large ship feel.
I don't have SS3 so I'm wondering if these missile hits are taking the hits for one missile of 0.017 dton and multiplying it or do they take into account the non-linear improvement in missile factor rating in HG2?
For example, 1 missile has a rating of 1, but 30 missiles have a rating of 6 not 30. And it takes a 100 ton bay to get a rating of 9 at TL12.
I don't have SS3 so it may use a completely different system than HG2 where missiles are not so dominant as they appear to be from SS3.
If SS3 style missiles are to be used, I think these numbers show the whole large ship concept is flawed. There is no advantage to large size if a 10 dton (or probably smaller) missile can wipe a 1,000,000 dton vessle. Better to split your fleet into the smallest missile delivary platforms you can make to work logistically and load up on anti-missile weapons.
It just seems to be a logical consequence of the rules you choose if you choose SS3 style missles. Not having SS3 I could be completely wrong on this.
Not saying one needs to follow SS3 style, especially since we are talking HG3 and HG2 certainly had a balance-of-arms (varying with TL) large ship feel.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Missiles in High Guard are seriously underpowered compared with nearly every other version of Traveller ship combat IMHO.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Missiles in High Guard are seriously underpowered compared with nearly every other version of Traveller ship combat IMHO.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I find myself wondering if the lack of power of HG2 missiles was a deliberate compensation for the lack of ammunition limits in HG2. If the enemy gets to shoot an unlimited number of missiles, you can't have them being too powerful.
Of course, GDW then went and invented the spinal meson gun, a "super-powerful" weapon with unlimited ammo.....
Of course, GDW then went and invented the spinal meson gun, a "super-powerful" weapon with unlimited ammo.....
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I find myself wondering if the lack of power of HG2 missiles was a deliberate compensation for the lack of ammunition limits in HG2. If the enemy gets to shoot an unlimited number of missiles, you can't have them being too powerful.
Of course, GDW then went and invented the spinal meson gun, a "super-powerful" weapon with unlimited ammo.....
Of course, GDW then went and invented the spinal meson gun, a "super-powerful" weapon with unlimited ammo.....
I'm reading this thread backwards from the end, so forgive me if this has already been suggested.
I note that the problem being solved is in inflicting and tracking damage. The current solutions handily show how many hits are required to inflict a point of damage to ships.
I'll keep reading backwards, but I have to ask: has the possibility of a potential-to-damage been considered? Where a group of hits (or shots) against a certain hull volume results in a single target number for a damage roll? Or even roll the damage roll into the damage table itself...
Ok, back to my thread reading.
I'm reading this thread backwards from the end, so forgive me if this has already been suggested.
I note that the problem being solved is in inflicting and tracking damage. The current solutions handily show how many hits are required to inflict a point of damage to ships.
I'll keep reading backwards, but I have to ask: has the possibility of a potential-to-damage been considered? Where a group of hits (or shots) against a certain hull volume results in a single target number for a damage roll? Or even roll the damage roll into the damage table itself...
Ok, back to my thread reading.
Okay, I've worked my way back to Dalton's post from October, and I think he's onto something.
I know this is tangential, but I'm working from less experience here.
High Guard is meant for squadron and fleet battles, so it can be seen as only a step or two down from Fifth Frontier War.
Dalton's suggestion is that a battery factor indicates the ship size that it's designed to mission-kill.
Well, I use ship size codes from T4, where each number represents a volume factor of 10, with size code 8 somewhat arbitrarily set as 100s of tons. Borrowing Dalton's idea, then, a Factor-8 battery hit will mission-kill ships up to 999 tons. A Factor-9 hit will mission-kill up to 9999 tons. F-10 will kill up to 99 ktons, and so on. I'd suspect the roll to hit would be a simple, CT-friendly 8+ on 2D. 40%.
Next, Dalton explains that smaller factors will chip away at spacecraft. But how does that work? Well, if a Factor-8 battery has a 40% chance of killing a Far Trader, does a Factor-7 battery have a 4% chance, or should we consult the damage tables? Maybe both: 12+ on 2D is a kill, while 8+ on 2D is a roll on the damage table. Similarly, a Factor-9 battery would have to roll a 2 to only do damage and not mission-kill the Size 8 target.
I imagine Factor-6 batteries have to roll a 12+ on 2D just to roll on the damage table. But smaller weapon batteries have no hope at all.
Finally, I don't know what to do about armor. It ought to be a damage absorber, but I just don't know.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled conversation.
I know this is tangential, but I'm working from less experience here.
High Guard is meant for squadron and fleet battles, so it can be seen as only a step or two down from Fifth Frontier War.
Dalton's suggestion is that a battery factor indicates the ship size that it's designed to mission-kill.
Well, I use ship size codes from T4, where each number represents a volume factor of 10, with size code 8 somewhat arbitrarily set as 100s of tons. Borrowing Dalton's idea, then, a Factor-8 battery hit will mission-kill ships up to 999 tons. A Factor-9 hit will mission-kill up to 9999 tons. F-10 will kill up to 99 ktons, and so on. I'd suspect the roll to hit would be a simple, CT-friendly 8+ on 2D. 40%.
Next, Dalton explains that smaller factors will chip away at spacecraft. But how does that work? Well, if a Factor-8 battery has a 40% chance of killing a Far Trader, does a Factor-7 battery have a 4% chance, or should we consult the damage tables? Maybe both: 12+ on 2D is a kill, while 8+ on 2D is a roll on the damage table. Similarly, a Factor-9 battery would have to roll a 2 to only do damage and not mission-kill the Size 8 target.
I imagine Factor-6 batteries have to roll a 12+ on 2D just to roll on the damage table. But smaller weapon batteries have no hope at all.
Finally, I don't know what to do about armor. It ought to be a damage absorber, but I just don't know.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled conversation.
Okay, I've worked my way back to Dalton's post from October, and I think he's onto something.
I know this is tangential, but I'm working from less experience here.
High Guard is meant for squadron and fleet battles, so it can be seen as only a step or two down from Fifth Frontier War.
Dalton's suggestion is that a battery factor indicates the ship size that it's designed to mission-kill.
Well, I use ship size codes from T4, where each number represents a volume factor of 10, with size code 8 somewhat arbitrarily set as 100s of tons. Borrowing Dalton's idea, then, a Factor-8 battery hit will mission-kill ships up to 999 tons. A Factor-9 hit will mission-kill up to 9999 tons. F-10 will kill up to 99 ktons, and so on. I'd suspect the roll to hit would be a simple, CT-friendly 8+ on 2D. 40%.
Next, Dalton explains that smaller factors will chip away at spacecraft. But how does that work? Well, if a Factor-8 battery has a 40% chance of killing a Far Trader, does a Factor-7 battery have a 4% chance, or should we consult the damage tables? Maybe both: 12+ on 2D is a kill, while 8+ on 2D is a roll on the damage table. Similarly, a Factor-9 battery would have to roll a 2 to only do damage and not mission-kill the Size 8 target.
I imagine Factor-6 batteries have to roll a 12+ on 2D just to roll on the damage table. But smaller weapon batteries have no hope at all.
Finally, I don't know what to do about armor. It ought to be a damage absorber, but I just don't know.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled conversation.
I know this is tangential, but I'm working from less experience here.
High Guard is meant for squadron and fleet battles, so it can be seen as only a step or two down from Fifth Frontier War.
Dalton's suggestion is that a battery factor indicates the ship size that it's designed to mission-kill.
Well, I use ship size codes from T4, where each number represents a volume factor of 10, with size code 8 somewhat arbitrarily set as 100s of tons. Borrowing Dalton's idea, then, a Factor-8 battery hit will mission-kill ships up to 999 tons. A Factor-9 hit will mission-kill up to 9999 tons. F-10 will kill up to 99 ktons, and so on. I'd suspect the roll to hit would be a simple, CT-friendly 8+ on 2D. 40%.
Next, Dalton explains that smaller factors will chip away at spacecraft. But how does that work? Well, if a Factor-8 battery has a 40% chance of killing a Far Trader, does a Factor-7 battery have a 4% chance, or should we consult the damage tables? Maybe both: 12+ on 2D is a kill, while 8+ on 2D is a roll on the damage table. Similarly, a Factor-9 battery would have to roll a 2 to only do damage and not mission-kill the Size 8 target.
I imagine Factor-6 batteries have to roll a 12+ on 2D just to roll on the damage table. But smaller weapon batteries have no hope at all.
Finally, I don't know what to do about armor. It ought to be a damage absorber, but I just don't know.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled conversation.
Has anyone suggested formulae for drive systems yet?
My pet project is knitting LBB2 and HG together at the edges, as much as possible. The easiest component to bring into HG is the jump drive formula. I don't know; maybe most people prefer to keep these two systems completely separate.
Jump Drives:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Jn x vol J-Drive volume (tons)
up to 6000 5 + Jn x vol / 40
> 6000 100 + Jn x vol / 100</pre>[/QUOTE]This would result in the canonical CT jump drive potential table for ships up to a couple thousand tons, and a roughly percentage-based table for ships beyond that. The seam between the two is relatively small.
For M-drives, I actually prefer the CT formula to the heavy HG formula, but I'm open to suggestions here.
Maneuver Drives:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">All sizes: (Accel x vol/100) - 1 tons (minimum volume 1 ton)</pre>[/QUOTE]
My pet project is knitting LBB2 and HG together at the edges, as much as possible. The easiest component to bring into HG is the jump drive formula. I don't know; maybe most people prefer to keep these two systems completely separate.
Jump Drives:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Jn x vol J-Drive volume (tons)
up to 6000 5 + Jn x vol / 40
> 6000 100 + Jn x vol / 100</pre>[/QUOTE]This would result in the canonical CT jump drive potential table for ships up to a couple thousand tons, and a roughly percentage-based table for ships beyond that. The seam between the two is relatively small.
For M-drives, I actually prefer the CT formula to the heavy HG formula, but I'm open to suggestions here.
Maneuver Drives:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">All sizes: (Accel x vol/100) - 1 tons (minimum volume 1 ton)</pre>[/QUOTE]
Has anyone suggested formulae for drive systems yet?
My pet project is knitting LBB2 and HG together at the edges, as much as possible. The easiest component to bring into HG is the jump drive formula. I don't know; maybe most people prefer to keep these two systems completely separate.
Jump Drives:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Jn x vol J-Drive volume (tons)
up to 6000 5 + Jn x vol / 40
> 6000 100 + Jn x vol / 100</pre>[/QUOTE]This would result in the canonical CT jump drive potential table for ships up to a couple thousand tons, and a roughly percentage-based table for ships beyond that. The seam between the two is relatively small.
For M-drives, I actually prefer the CT formula to the heavy HG formula, but I'm open to suggestions here.
Maneuver Drives:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">All sizes: (Accel x vol/100) - 1 tons (minimum volume 1 ton)</pre>[/QUOTE]
My pet project is knitting LBB2 and HG together at the edges, as much as possible. The easiest component to bring into HG is the jump drive formula. I don't know; maybe most people prefer to keep these two systems completely separate.
Jump Drives:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Jn x vol J-Drive volume (tons)
up to 6000 5 + Jn x vol / 40
> 6000 100 + Jn x vol / 100</pre>[/QUOTE]This would result in the canonical CT jump drive potential table for ships up to a couple thousand tons, and a roughly percentage-based table for ships beyond that. The seam between the two is relatively small.
For M-drives, I actually prefer the CT formula to the heavy HG formula, but I'm open to suggestions here.
Maneuver Drives:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">All sizes: (Accel x vol/100) - 1 tons (minimum volume 1 ton)</pre>[/QUOTE]
daltoncalford
SOC-12
I forgot that I had even posted that stuff here.
I have run many a battle with the scale/factor mechanics, including the use of armor.
It is a fundemental part of my game mechanics that I use. It works and keeps the 'feel' of the game.
To re-iterate the final progression of the system the ships size represents it's scale, including it's ability to absorb hits, resist damage, etc.
All weapons battery ratings are in relationship to what sort of damage they can do to a ship of X scale.
Damage tables, similar to CT/Snapshot/Highguard are used, but, what column you use is relative to the weapon vs the size. If weapon = size roll on table 7, but if the weapon is one less than size, roll on table 6.
Highguard like armour values add to the die roll.
No need for hit points, or tedius book keeping.
So, the roll to hit, is one procedure, while damage is a second.
Combat turns vary in length depending upon range between sides.
Different weapons are valuable at different ranges. Making plasma barbettes popular with small fast attack craft that close range and use the power of the attack to cause potential damage beyond their size class, while lasers and missiles are popular for long range jousting.
It has been almost a year in playtesting. If I was a good writer I would take out a license from Marc and see if anyone wanted to buy it.
best regards
Dalton
