High Guard 3

[The Oz]

I think the easiest thing would be to treat the massed batteries in every way like any other weapon with a factor greater than 9.

Both HG and MT say that "spinal mounts get one extra damage roll for each letter" greater than 9. I would read that to mean massed batteries would not get extra damage rolls from this rule.

However, the rule about extra critical hits for weapons whose factor exceeds the size factor of the target specifically says "batteries" and even gives an example using a factor-9 battery hitting a size-4 ship. So this rule would apply to massed batteries.

So all together I would think that massed batteries get no extra damage rolls on any tables but do get the automatic critical hits if the effective USP factor of the massed battery exceeds the size USP factor of the target.

Done this way, massing batteries together gets you better chances to hit and penetrate defenses (including armor, thanks to the loss of the +6DM on the damage roll) but you only get one roll on the damage table (assuming the target is bigger than your massed batteries).

 

[mike wightman]

I wouldn't add the bonuses to the USP rating. I'd apply them as +DM's to hit, to penetrate, and as a -DM on the damage table.
No extra damage, only spinals get that

 

[mike wightman]

I wouldn't add the bonuses to the USP rating. I'd apply them as +DM's to hit, to penetrate, and as a -DM on the damage table.
No extra damage, only spinals get that

 

[RainOfSteel]

Well, the "extra damage rolls" above and beyond I was discussing were just an idea. The standard rule for getting extra damage rolls for the battery's weapon code exceeding the target vessel's size code is sufficient for me. Of course, even 100 batteries (taking up 100,000 tons of weapons allocation) will still have a max USP of K. Size-code wise that's a 10,000 dTon vessel. Oh! I forgot for a second, only some batteries bear.

To reach above 200,000 dTons, to weapon code T, 180 bearing batteries will have to be massed. To get 180 batteries of turreted weapons, the ship will likely be at least 500,000 dTons (USP V). Since only 50% of batteries bear on V code ships, then at least 360 batteries will have to be mounted.


DEFENSIVE FIRE

It also just occurs to me, that since batteries may be massed for offensive fire, they may also, obviously, be massed for defensive fire, as well. That would include Sandcaster batteries massing their defensive value.


FIGHTERS

Since there is many a discussion about allowing fighters to datalink themselves into a single massed battery, this provides a small boost to the idea of this whole discussion in general.

However, the next logical step would be to allow massing of multiple fighter squadrons. Do you have squadron of 10 heavy fighters datalinked into a battery of 10 triple laser turrets? Hello, Fleet Carrier, with 30 Squadrons datalinked together.

It is this concept, I think, that would allow fighters in HG2 to have real significance.

Eight Fleet Carries carry 2400 heavy fighters. 240 Squadrons. That would be USP Z (35). Even capital ships would have to worry about that many extra damage rolls (see HG2 p. 41), as well they should.


DATALINKING

Of course, the next logical step is, if fighters may be datalinked, then we must examine the concept of datalinking starships.

Massed meson spinal mounts, anyone?


Ok, for the record, I'd propose that only "Small Craft" may be datalinked.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Well, the "extra damage rolls" above and beyond I was discussing were just an idea. The standard rule for getting extra damage rolls for the battery's weapon code exceeding the target vessel's size code is sufficient for me. Of course, even 100 batteries (taking up 100,000 tons of weapons allocation) will still have a max USP of K. Size-code wise that's a 10,000 dTon vessel. Oh! I forgot for a second, only some batteries bear.

To reach above 200,000 dTons, to weapon code T, 180 bearing batteries will have to be massed. To get 180 batteries of turreted weapons, the ship will likely be at least 500,000 dTons (USP V). Since only 50% of batteries bear on V code ships, then at least 360 batteries will have to be mounted.


DEFENSIVE FIRE

It also just occurs to me, that since batteries may be massed for offensive fire, they may also, obviously, be massed for defensive fire, as well. That would include Sandcaster batteries massing their defensive value.


FIGHTERS

Since there is many a discussion about allowing fighters to datalink themselves into a single massed battery, this provides a small boost to the idea of this whole discussion in general.

However, the next logical step would be to allow massing of multiple fighter squadrons. Do you have squadron of 10 heavy fighters datalinked into a battery of 10 triple laser turrets? Hello, Fleet Carrier, with 30 Squadrons datalinked together.

It is this concept, I think, that would allow fighters in HG2 to have real significance.

Eight Fleet Carries carry 2400 heavy fighters. 240 Squadrons. That would be USP Z (35). Even capital ships would have to worry about that many extra damage rolls (see HG2 p. 41), as well they should.


DATALINKING

Of course, the next logical step is, if fighters may be datalinked, then we must examine the concept of datalinking starships.

Massed meson spinal mounts, anyone?


Ok, for the record, I'd propose that only "Small Craft" may be datalinked.

 

[mike wightman]

Hmm, a swarm of fighters firing as one, causing significant damage to capital ships?

This I like

All the more reason to have escort craft to counter the fighters and prevent them from forming up for the massed attack.

How about linking bay weapon batteries so that they get the USP bonuses?

 

[mike wightman]

Hmm, a swarm of fighters firing as one, causing significant damage to capital ships?

This I like

All the more reason to have escort craft to counter the fighters and prevent them from forming up for the massed attack.

How about linking bay weapon batteries so that they get the USP bonuses?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Of course, massed squadrons of datalinked fighters would present an easier target to hit. If they're firing as one, they're moving as one, too.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Of course, massed squadrons of datalinked fighters would present an easier target to hit. If they're firing as one, they're moving as one, too.

 

[The Oz]

How I proposed handling datalinked fighters was to have every "hit" of damage done killing one fighter, so a Wpn-3 hit killed three fighters, while a Fuel-1 hit killed only one.

I agree that fighters firing as massed squadrons (what I called a "Fighter Group") can be targeted as a single entity. If massed batteries were used against a Fighter Group I would say that for every "hit" done you kill one fighter per battery in the massed battery: so if you massed 10 factor-9 laser batteries you'd get one die roll at factor-C, and if you rolled a Wpn-1 hit you'd have killed (1 hit times 10 batteries massed) 10 fighters, or one entire squadron. Any critical hit or the Fuel Tanks Shattered hit would kill one squadron each (which would still be multiplied by the number of batteries massed.

In a campaign game I would not rule that all these "killed" fighters were destroyed, and allow die rolls to determine the actual percentage of lost fighters.

Sigg:

I would think that you could mass bay weapons under this rule. In theory you might even allow massing spinal mounts, but that wouldn't really be very efficient. According to the table Chris O. has proposed massing enough factor-J meson guns to equal a single factor-N meson gun would require 30 factor-J guns!!! It's easier to just have the factor-N weapons.

I would put a limit on the number of fighter squadrons (or starships, for that matter) that could datalink together for massed battery fire. Perhaps the limit would be twice the lowest (or highest) computer factor in the datalink? Fighters might be allowed to use the computer factor of their carrier (or some other ship) if that ship was at the same range as the fighters.

This would require an additional step in HG combat resolution, probably before determining intiative, for the players to organize their datalink groups.

This might also be tied to a rule about "escorts" where ships/fighters in datalink groups can use their weapons to defend other members of the datalink group, giving additional point to those escorts Sigg likes so much.

 

[The Oz]

How I proposed handling datalinked fighters was to have every "hit" of damage done killing one fighter, so a Wpn-3 hit killed three fighters, while a Fuel-1 hit killed only one.

I agree that fighters firing as massed squadrons (what I called a "Fighter Group") can be targeted as a single entity. If massed batteries were used against a Fighter Group I would say that for every "hit" done you kill one fighter per battery in the massed battery: so if you massed 10 factor-9 laser batteries you'd get one die roll at factor-C, and if you rolled a Wpn-1 hit you'd have killed (1 hit times 10 batteries massed) 10 fighters, or one entire squadron. Any critical hit or the Fuel Tanks Shattered hit would kill one squadron each (which would still be multiplied by the number of batteries massed.

In a campaign game I would not rule that all these "killed" fighters were destroyed, and allow die rolls to determine the actual percentage of lost fighters.

Sigg:

I would think that you could mass bay weapons under this rule. In theory you might even allow massing spinal mounts, but that wouldn't really be very efficient. According to the table Chris O. has proposed massing enough factor-J meson guns to equal a single factor-N meson gun would require 30 factor-J guns!!! It's easier to just have the factor-N weapons.

I would put a limit on the number of fighter squadrons (or starships, for that matter) that could datalink together for massed battery fire. Perhaps the limit would be twice the lowest (or highest) computer factor in the datalink? Fighters might be allowed to use the computer factor of their carrier (or some other ship) if that ship was at the same range as the fighters.

This would require an additional step in HG combat resolution, probably before determining intiative, for the players to organize their datalink groups.

This might also be tied to a rule about "escorts" where ships/fighters in datalink groups can use their weapons to defend other members of the datalink group, giving additional point to those escorts Sigg likes so much.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by The Oz:
According to the table Chris O. has proposed massing enough factor-J meson guns to equal a single factor-N meson gun would require 30 factor-J guns!!! It's easier to just have the factor-N weapons.

Let us remember that after proposing datalinking starships, I immediately suggested a rule that allowed only "small craft" to datalink for the purposes of massed battery fire.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by The Oz:
According to the table Chris O. has proposed massing enough factor-J meson guns to equal a single factor-N meson gun would require 30 factor-J guns!!! It's easier to just have the factor-N weapons.

Let us remember that after proposing datalinking starships, I immediately suggested a rule that allowed only "small craft" to datalink for the purposes of massed battery fire.

 

[The Oz]

I saw that.

What I was pointing out was that datalinking full-sized ships in order to mass their spinal mounts just isn't very efficient; you're better off building ships with bigger spinal mounts.

I agree that only small craft (and maybe ships under 1000 dtons?) should be allowed to datalink to mass their fires, at least offensively. Perhaps defensive massing could be allowed to all sizes of ships?

 

[The Oz]

I saw that.

What I was pointing out was that datalinking full-sized ships in order to mass their spinal mounts just isn't very efficient; you're better off building ships with bigger spinal mounts.

I agree that only small craft (and maybe ships under 1000 dtons?) should be allowed to datalink to mass their fires, at least offensively. Perhaps defensive massing could be allowed to all sizes of ships?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Datalinking starships to allow massing of fire, offensive and defensive, may seem like the logical next-step.

However, I'd argue that the main purpose of the massed battery fire rule would be to save time on rolling an indivdual ship's huge number of batteries.

This purpose would also be served by grouping fighters into squadrons and then wings (or whatever). It saves huge amounts of time.

If we go the next step to allowing starships to group together, we could, in effect, roll all lasers for an entire fleet all at once . . . and that goes a little too far for me. The time savings race has now expanded to the point of making one roll per weapon type for the whole fleet (if taken to the ultimate conclusion).

In addition, there are complexities of multi-ship defensive fire revealed by playing Starfire. If it were done, it would require some extensive thought and analysis, because it would redesign the whole arena of ship-design and fleet design philosophy.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Datalinking starships to allow massing of fire, offensive and defensive, may seem like the logical next-step.

However, I'd argue that the main purpose of the massed battery fire rule would be to save time on rolling an indivdual ship's huge number of batteries.

This purpose would also be served by grouping fighters into squadrons and then wings (or whatever). It saves huge amounts of time.

If we go the next step to allowing starships to group together, we could, in effect, roll all lasers for an entire fleet all at once . . . and that goes a little too far for me. The time savings race has now expanded to the point of making one roll per weapon type for the whole fleet (if taken to the ultimate conclusion).

In addition, there are complexities of multi-ship defensive fire revealed by playing Starfire. If it were done, it would require some extensive thought and analysis, because it would redesign the whole arena of ship-design and fleet design philosophy.

 

[aramis]

One advantage of Traveller over Starfire: measuuring ranges in small fractions of an LS... rather than 1/2 or 1/4 LS (The latter being GSF) hexes, with Dz (datalink point defense) being range 3 capable... (3 sec track to intercept times! For Beam-based Dz no less!)

Starfire is pretty simplistic, and very generous range-wise (making Traveller Gravitic-Focused-Lasers seem positively short ranged...).

 

[aramis]

One advantage of Traveller over Starfire: measuuring ranges in small fractions of an LS... rather than 1/2 or 1/4 LS (The latter being GSF) hexes, with Dz (datalink point defense) being range 3 capable... (3 sec track to intercept times! For Beam-based Dz no less!)

Starfire is pretty simplistic, and very generous range-wise (making Traveller Gravitic-Focused-Lasers seem positively short ranged...).

 

[robject]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Datalinking starships to allow massing of fire, offensive and defensive, may seem like the logical next-step.

[...]

This purpose would also be served by grouping fighters into squadrons and then wings (or whatever). It saves huge amounts of time.

If we go the next step to allowing starships to group together, we could, in effect, roll all lasers for an entire fleet all at once . . . and that goes a little too far for me.

[...]

But the concept itself is sound. Recall those cute little mass-combat rules in Mercenary. It would be nice if simplistic rules like that could be made for starship combat, so the referee (for instance) could quickly determine the outcome of, say, the clash of fleets in Zarushagar in 1118, then reporting the time-delayed results back to the players.

Or, alternately, the players might be in the crew of one of those fleets. The first couple rounds might be on full-fleet granularity, then as the fleets get whittled down, the units are broken down further as the fights get more granular, until finally the players' squadron are doing ship-to-ship skirmishing, boarding actions, and/or hasty repairs.